4 ms·
Although that is indeed the name of the paper, it is not one of the questions they answered in the paper. It seems more like "What kind of perceived flaws lead
by mikekchar 11y ago
Although that is indeed the name of the paper, it is not one of the questions they answered in the paper. It seems more like "What kind of perceived flaws leads to the rejection of PRs".
- jjmanton 11y agoAgreed. I think Technical Debt is used incorrectly here, I only consider items debt once they are merged and are intended to be fixed at a future time.
- madeofpalk 11y agoTechnical Debt in a PR is just a 'bad purchase'
- aidenn0 11y agoNo, it's a purchase on credit. It's only a 'bad purchase' if the long-term result is a net-negative.
- driusan 11y agoI was pretty disappointed by the title too. The question "Does technical debt that's been already accrued lead to the rejection of new pull requests?" is what I was expecting. Instead, the question they're asking is "Do pull requests which add technical debt to a project get rejected?" which is.. pretty obvious. That's the whole point of code review. They go on to analyze the breakdown of what type of defect causes more discussion by doing a simple average across all of the projects they looked at, but given the visualization in Figure 2 I don't know how you can come to any real conclusion other than "it depends on the project."
- pklausler 11y agoIdentifying technical debt is certainly part of a good code review process, but it's hardly the "whole point".
- artpepper 11y agoBased on the title, I was thinking it meant: Technical debt leads to project maintainers being less willing to incorporate code changes (perhaps because the code base is harder to understand?) ... which sounded plausible!