Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the role of pull request (PR) descriptions in code review outcomes by analyzing 80K GitHub PRs across 156 projects and surveying 64 developers. They derive a taxonomy of eight recommended elements for PR descriptions based on a grey literature review. The study finds that while developers generally value PR descriptions, the inclusion of elements like stating the desired feedback type is most strongly associated with change acceptance and reviewer engagement, while purpose and code explanations are valued for preserving rationale.
Stating the desired feedback type in a pull request description is the single best predictor of code change acceptance and reviewer engagement.
In the pull-based development model, code contributions are submitted as pull requests (PRs) to undergo reviews and approval by other developers with the goal of being merged into the code base. A PR can be supported by a description, whose role has not yet been systematically investigated. To fill in this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods empirical study of PR descriptions. We conducted a grey literature review of guidelines on writing PR descriptions and derived a taxonomy of eight recommended elements. Using this taxonomy, we analyzed 80K GitHub PRs across 156 projects and five programming languages to assess associations between these elements and code review outcomes (e.g., merge decision, latency, first response time, review comments, and review iteration cycles). To complement these results, we surveyed 64 developers about the perceived importance of each element. Finally, we analyzed which submission-time factors predict whether PRs include a description and which elements they contain. We found that developers view PR descriptions as important, but their elements matter differently: purpose and code explanations are valued by developers for preserving the rationale and history of changes, while stating the desired feedback type best predicts change acceptance and reviewer engagement. PR descriptions are also more common in mature projects and complex changes, suggesting they are written when most useful rather than as a formality.
