prj_doc/6_conlusion.tex

36 lines
1.9 KiB
TeX

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Concl}
In this paper,
we quantitatively investigated the prevalence (RQ1) and maintenance (RQ2) of community profile documentation.
We conducted a large-scale study on 2,000 OSS projects randomly collected from GitHub.
Our analysis indicates that
the \RDM and \LIC documentation is far more pervasive
and included earlier
than the \CON, \COD and \TMP documentation in OSS projects.
We found that repositories of TypeScript and repositories of larger community size are more inclined to include community profile documentation.
We also observed that community profile documentation is more pervasive in younger repositories,
organizations' repositories, and repositories of larger community size.
% \CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation is more likely to be found in organizations' repositories than personal repositories.
% Younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file than a \CON file.
We identified that
community profile documentation is mainly placed in the \textit{root} directory rather than the \textit{.github} or \textit{doc} directory.
Moreover,
community profile documentation is maintained by a small group of developers with a low frequency of update mainly driven by
perfective and adaptive changes.
Our work enables a better understanding of community profile documentation,
which can bring benefits for OSS practitioners.
The findings on documentation prevalence can
provide insights into the criteria that can be considered
by OSS developers
when selecting a project with adequate profile documentation to participate in.
The findings on documentation maintenance can
provide reference for OSS maintainers about how to assess and manage the profile documentation in their repositories.
In future work,
we plan to further investigate the specific reasons
behind and impacts of not including the community profile documentation.