Modern, complex software systems are being continuously extended and adjusted. The developers responsible for this may come from different teams or organizations, and may be distributed over the world. This may make it difficult to keep track of what other developers are doing, which may result in multiple developers concurrently editing the same code areas. This, in turn, may lead to hard-to-merge changes or even merge conflicts, logical bugs that are difficult to detect, duplication of work, and wasted developer productivity. To address this, we explore the extent of this problem in the pull-request-based software development model. We study half a year of changes made to six large repositories in Microsoft in which at least 1,000 pull requests are created each month. We find that files concurrently edited in different pull requests are more likely to introduce bugs. Motivated by these findings, we design, implement, and deploy a service named Concurrent Edit Detector (ConE) that proactively detects pull requests containing concurrent edits, to help mitigate the problems caused by them. ConE has been designed to scale, and to minimize false alarms while still flagging relevant concurrently edited files. Key concepts of ConE include the detection of the Extent of Overlap between pull requests, and the identification of Rarely Concurrently Edited Files. To evaluate ConE, we report on its operational deployment on 234 repositories inside Microsoft. ConE assessed 26,000 pull requests and made 775 recommendations about conflicting changes, which were rated as useful in over 70% (554) of the cases. From interviews with 48 users, we learned that they believed ConE would save time in conflict resolution and avoiding duplicate work, and that over 90% intend to keep using the service on a daily basis.

Pull requests are a key part of the collaborative software development and code review process today. However, pull requests can also slow down the software development process when the reviewer(s) or the author do not actively engage with the pull request. In this work, we design an end-to-end service, Nudge, for accelerating overdue pull requests toward completion by reminding the author or the reviewer(s) to engage with their overdue pull requests. First, we use models based on effort estimation and machine learning to predict the completion time for a given pull request. Second, we use activity detection to filter out pull requests that may be overdue but for which sufficient action is taking place nonetheless. Last, we use actor identification to understand who the blocker of the pull request is and nudge the appropriate actor (author or reviewer(s)). The key novelty of Nudge is that it succeeds in reducing pull request resolution time, while ensuring that developers perceive the notifications sent as useful, at the scale of thousands of repositories. In a randomized trial on 147 repositories in use at Microsoft, Nudge was able to reduce pull request resolution time by 60% for 8,500 pull requests, when compared to overdue pull requests for which Nudge did not send a notification. Furthermore, developers receiving Nudge notifications resolved 73% of these notifications as positive. We observed similar results when scaling up the deployment of Nudge to 8,000 repositories at Microsoft, for which Nudge sent 210,000 notifications during a full year. This demonstrates Nudge's ability to scale to thousands of repositories. Last, our qualitative analysis of a selection of Nudge notifications indicates areas for future research, such as taking dependencies among pull requests and developer availability into account.