Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Software peer review is practiced on a diverse set of software projects that have drastically different settings, cultures, incentive systems, and time pressures. In an effort to characterize and understand these differences  examine two Google-led projects, Android and Chromium OS, three Microsoft projects, Bing, Office, and MS SQL, and projects internal to AMD.  contrast our findings with data taken from traditional software inspection conducted on a Lucent project and from open source software peer review on six projects, including Apache, Linux, and KDE. Our measures of interest include the review interval, the number of developers involved in review, and proxy measures for the number of defects found during review.  find that despite differences among projects, many of the characteristics of the review process have independently converged to similar values which  think indicate general principles of code review practice.  also introduce a measure of the degree to which knowledge is shared during review. This is an aspect of review practice that has traditionally only had experiential support. Our knowledge sharing measure shows that conducting peer review increases the number of distinct files a developer knows about by 66% to 150% depending on the project.  is one of the first studies of contemporary review in software firms and the most diverse study of peer review to date.
['Peter C. Rigby', 'Christian Bird']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Convergent contemporary software peer review practices
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Convergent contemporary software peer review practices"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Software peer review is practiced on a diverse set of software projects that have drastically different settings, cultures, incentive systems, and time pressures. In an effort to characterize and understand these differences  examine two Google-led projects, Android and Chromium OS, three Microsoft projects, Bing, Office, and MS SQL, and projects internal to AMD.  contrast our findings with data taken from traditional software inspection conducted on a Lucent project and from open source software peer review on six projects, including Apache, Linux, and KDE. Our measures of interest include the review interval, the number of developers involved in review, and proxy measures for the number of defects found during review.  find that despite differences among projects, many of the characteristics of the review process have independently converged to similar values which  think indicate general principles of code review practice.  also introduce a measure of the degree to which knowledge is shared during review. This is an aspect of review practice that has traditionally only had experiential support. Our knowledge sharing measure shows that conducting peer review increases the number of distinct files a developer knows about by 66% to 150% depending on the project.  is one of the first studies of contemporary review in software firms and the most diverse study of peer review to date."}]