Abstract
The release frequency of software projects has increased in recent years. Adopters of so-called rapid releases-short release cycles, often on the order of weeks, days, or even hours-claim that they can deliver fixed issues (i.e., implemented bug fixes and new features) to users more quickly. However, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. In fact, our prior work shows that code integration phases may introduce delays for rapidly releasing projects-98% of the fixed issues in the rapidly releasing Firefox project had their integration delayed by at least one release. To better understand the impact that rapid release cycles have on the integration delay of fixed issues, we perform a comparative study of traditional and rapid release cycles. Our comparative study has two parts: (i) a quantitative empirical analysis of 72,114 issue reports from the Firefox project, and a (ii) qualitative study involving 37 participants, who are contributors of the Firefox, Eclipse, and ArgoUML projects. Our study is divided into quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative analyses reveal that, surprisingly, fixed issues take a median of 54% (57 days) longer to be integrated in rapid Firefox releases than the traditional ones. To investigate the factors that are related to integration delay in traditional and rapid release cycles, we train regression models that model whether a fixed issue will have its integration delayed or not. Our explanatory models achieve good discrimination (ROC areas of 0.80-0.84) and calibration scores (Brier scores of 0.05-0.16) for rapid and traditional releases. Our explanatory models indicate that (i) traditional releases prioritize the integration of backlog issues, while (ii) rapid releases prioritize issues that were fixed in the current release cycle. Complementary qualitative analyses reveal that participants' perception about integration delay is tightly related to activities that involve decision making, risk management, and team collaboration. Moreover, the allure of shipping fixed issues faster is a main motivator for adopting rapid release cycles among participants (although this motivation is not supported by our quantitative analysis). Furthermore, to explain why traditional releases deliver fixed issues more quickly, our participants point out the rush for integration in traditional releases and the increased time that is invested on polishing issues in rapid releases. Our results suggest that rapid release cycles may not be a silver bullet for the rapid delivery of new content to users. Instead, our results suggest that the benefits of rapid releases are increased software stability and user feedback.