Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2204.00155

How heated is it? Understanding GitHub locked issues

Isabella Ferreira·Bram Adams·Jinghui Cheng
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although issues of open source software are created to discuss and solve technical problems, conversations can become heated, with discussants getting angry and/or agitated for a variety of reasons, such as poor suggestions or violation of community conventions. To prevent and mitigate discussions from getting heated, tools like GitHub have introduced the ability to lock issue discussions that violate the code of conduct or other community guidelines. Despite some early research on locked issues, there is a lack of understanding of how communities use this feature and of potential threats to validity for researchers relying on a dataset of locked issues as an oracle for heated discussions. To address this gap, we (i) quantitatively analyzed 79 GitHub projects that have at least one issue locked as too heated, and (ii) qualitatively analyzed all issues locked as too heated of the 79 projects, a total of 205 issues comprising 5,511 comments. We found that projects have different behaviors when locking issues: while 54 locked less than 10% of their closed issues, 14 projects locked more than 90% of their closed issues. Additionally, locked issues tend to have a similar number of comments, participants, and emoji reactions to non-locked issues. For the 205 issues locked as too heated, we found that one-third do not contain any uncivil discourse, and only 8.82% of the analyzed comments are actually uncivil. Finally, we found that the locking justifications provided by maintainers do not always match the label used to lock the issue. Based on our results, we identified three pitfalls to avoid when using the GitHub locked issues data and we provide recommendations for researchers and practitioners.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Isabella Ferreira, Bram Adams, Jinghui Cheng. 2022-04-01. How heated is it? Understanding GitHub locked issues. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524842.3527957

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗