Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes over 61,000 GitHub repositories to characterize hot fixes, identifying them through repository-level operationalization of urgency. The analysis reveals that hot fixes are characterized by reduced collaboration, smaller changesets, and fewer test modifications compared to regular bug fixes. By comparing human-authored and AI-agent-authored hot fixes, the study uncovers over 10 distinct repair behaviors, offering insights into future human-automation collaboration.
AI agents and humans exhibit over 10 distinct repair behaviors when performing urgent hot fixes, suggesting opportunities for targeted human-automation collaboration.
Despite the operational importance of hot fixes, large-scale evidence on how they reshape routine maintenance workflows, particularly in the era of autonomous coding agents, remains limited. We analyse hot fixes present in over 61,000 GitHub repositories from the Hao-Li/AIDev dataset and find consistent patterns of urgency: reduced collaboration (typically a single contributor), smaller and more targeted changes (median 2-3 commits and files, with <10 line modifications), limited review (often fewer than two reviewers), and substantially fewer test file modifications than regular bug fixes, consistent with their urgency-driven character. Leveraging the same urgency contexts, we examine differences between human- and AI-agent-authored hot fixes, revealing over 10 distinct repair behaviours, thus offering insights into future human-automation collaboration for hot fixing. Our study is the first to empirically analyse hot fix code changes at scale using a repository-level operationalisation of urgency. The comparison of human and agentbehaviours delineates their distinct characteristics, providing a foundation for understanding hot fixing in real-world practice
