A Comparative Review and Data-Driven Analysis of Open-Source Software Development Trends

Year : 2026 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 02 | Page : 1 9
By

Priyankakumari MiteshKumar Patel,

  1. Ph.D. scholar, Department of Computer Science, Sabarmati University, Gujarat, India

Abstract

Open-source software (OSS) underpins a substantial portion of modern software infrastructure. Despite its importance, comparative empirical analyses that jointly examine development velocity, popularity–maintenance relationships, and cross-domain differences remain limited. This paper presents a data-driven comparative study of 28 high-impact open-source repositories spanning web frameworks, machine learning systems, infrastructure tooling, and programming language runtimes. Drawing on repository metadata, 7,082 issues, and 248,320 pull requests, we quantify issue resolution times, pull-request merge latency, and efficiency metrics. Our principal findings are fourfold. First, the median pull-request merge time (0.57 days) is substantially lower than the median issue resolution time (15.09 days)—approximately a twenty-six-fold difference. Second, project category exerts a statistically significant effect on both metrics (Kruskal–Wallis H = 130.81, p < 10⁻²⁶ for issues; H = 6547.39, p ≈ 0 for pull requests (PRs)). Third, the correlation between stars and open issues is weak (Spearman ρ = 0.172, p = 0.38), indicating that popularity does not automatically translate into higher maintenance burden. Fourth, efficiency—measured as stars per open issue—varies by more than two orders of magnitude, with Flask emerging as an outlier of exceptional maintenance hygiene (6,747 stars per open issue). These results provide empirical benchmarks for maintainers and contributors and highlight the role of domain-specific governance cultures in shaping development dynamics.

Keywords: Open-source software, empirical software engineering, pull requests, issue resolution, development velocity, comparative analysis

[This article belongs to Journal of Open Source Developments ]

How to cite this article: Priyankakumari MiteshKumar Patel. A Comparative Review and Data-Driven Analysis of Open-Source Software Development Trends. Journal of Open Source Developments. 2026; 13(02):1-9.
How to cite this URL: Priyankakumari MiteshKumar Patel. A Comparative Review and Data-Driven Analysis of Open-Source Software Development Trends. Journal of Open Source Developments. 2026; 13(02):1-9. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/joosd/article=2026/view=260000

References

  1. Mockus A, Fielding RT, Herbsleb JD. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol. 2002;11(3):309–346. doi:10.1145/567793.567795.
  2. Gousios G, Pinzger M, van Deursen A. An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2014), Hyderabad, India. 2014. p.345–55. doi:10.1145/2568225.2568260.
  3. Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J. Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2014), Hyderabad, India. 2014. p.356–66. doi:10.1145/2568225.2568315.
  4. Zhang X, Yu Y, Wang T, Rastogi A, Wang H. Pull request latency explained: an empirical overview. Empir Softw Eng. 2022;27(6):126. doi:10.1007/s10664-022-10143-4.
  5. Zhang X, Yu Y, Gousios G, Rastogi A. Pull request decisions explained: an empirical overview. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 2023;49(2):849–871. doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3165056.
  6. Saroar SG, Nayebi M. Developers’ perception of GitHub Actions: a survey analysis. 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2023), Oulu, Finland. 2023. p.121–30. doi:10.1145/3593434.3593475.
  7. Alam K, Roy B. What drives issue resolution speed? An empirical study of scientific workflow systems on GitHub. 2026 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), Auckland, New Zealand. 2026. p.1–6. doi:10.1109/SANER67736.2026.00116.
  8. Kikas R, Dumas M, Pfahl D. Using dynamic and contextual features to predict issue lifetime in GitHub projects. 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2016), Austin, TX, USA. 2016. p.291–302. doi:10.1145/2901739.2901751.
  9. Rahman MM, Roy CK. An insight into the pull requests of GitHub. 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2014), Hyderabad, India. 2014. p.364–7. doi:10.1145/2597073.2597121.
  10. Gousios G, Zaidman A, Storey MA, van Deursen A. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: the integrator’s perspective. 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Florence, Italy. 2015. p.358–68. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2015.55.
  11. Li Z, Yu Y, Wang T, Yin G, Li S, Wang H. Are you still working on this? An empirical study on pull request abandonment. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 2022;48:2173-2188. doi:10.1109/TSE.2021.3053403.
  12. Kononenko O, Rose T, Baysal O, Godfrey MW, Theisen D, de Water B. Studying pull request merges: a case study of Shopify’s active merchant. 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), Gothenburg, Sweden. 2018. p.124–33. doi:10.1145/3183519.3183542.
  13. Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA. 2012. p.1277–86. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145396.
  14. Vasilescu BN, Posnett D, Ray B, van den Brand MGJ, Serebrenik A, Devanbu P, et al. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2015. p.3789–98. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702549.
  15. Terrell J, Kofink A, Middleton J, Rainear C, Murphy-Hill E, Parnin C, et al. Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2017;3:e111. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.111.
  16. Kudrjavets G, Nagappan N, Rastogi A. Do small code changes merge faster? A multi-language empirical investigation. 2022 IEEE/ACM 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2022. p.537–48. doi:10.1145/3524842.3528448.
  17. Moreira Soares D, de Lima Júnior ML, Murta L, Plastino A. What factors influence the lifetime of pull requests? Softw Pract Exp. 2021;51(6):1173–1193. doi:10.1002/spe.2946.
  18. Hasan KA, Macedo M, Tian Y, Adams B, Ding S. Understanding the time to first response in GitHub pull requests. 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Melbourne, Australia. 2023. p.1–11. doi:10.1109/MSR59073.2023.00015.
  19. Vasilescu B, Yu Y, Wang H, Devanbu PT, Filkov V. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015), Bergamo, Italy. 2015. p.805–16. doi:10.1145/2786805.2786850.
  20. Yu Y, Wang H, Filkov V, Devanbu P, Vasilescu B. Wait for it: determinants of pull request evaluation latency on GitHub. 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Florence, Italy. 2015. p.367–71. doi:10.1109/MSR.2015.42.
  21. Zampetti F, Scalabrino S, Oliveto R, Canfora G, Di Penta M. How open source projects use static code analysis tools in continuous integration pipelines. 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2017. p.334–44. doi:10.1109/MSR.2017.2.
  22. Baysal O, Kononenko O, Holmes R, Godfrey MW. The influence of non-technical factors on code review. 2013 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), Koblenz, Germany. 2013. p.122–31. doi:10.1109/WCRE.2013.6671287.
  23. Steinmacher I, Conte TU, Gerosa MA, Redmiles DF. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW), Vancouver, Canada. 2015. p.1379–92. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675215.
  24. Gousios G, Zaidman A. A dataset for pull-based development research. 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Hyderabad, India. 2014. p.368–71. doi:10.1145/2597073.2597122.
  25. Kalliamvakou E, Gousios G, Blincoe K, Singer L, German DM, Damian D. The promises and perils of mining GitHub. 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Hyderabad, India. 2014. p.92–101. doi:10.1145/2597073.2597074.
Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 13
Issue 02
Received 16/09/2026
Accepted 26/09/2026
Published 28/09/2026
Publication Time 12 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics

Support