  At ICSE'2013, there was the first session ever dedicated to automatic program
repair. In this session, Kim et al. presented PAR, a novel template-based
approach for fixing Java bugs. We strongly disagree with key points of this
paper. Our critical review has two goals. First, we aim at explaining why we
disagree with Kim and colleagues and why the reasons behind this disagreement
are important for research on automatic software repair in general. Second, we
aim at contributing to the field with a clarification of the essential ideas
behind automatic software repair. In particular we discuss the main evaluation
criteria of automatic software repair: understandability, correctness and
completeness. We show that depending on how one sets up the repair scenario,
the evaluation goals may be contradictory. Eventually, we discuss the nature of
fix acceptability and its relation to the notion of software correctness.
