MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212906466 · doi:10.1109/tse.2022.3152148

An Empirical Study of Yanked Releases in the Rust Package Registry

2022· article· en· W4212906466 on OpenAlexafffund
Hao Li, Filipe R. Cogo, Cor‐Paul Bezemer

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer scienceRust (programming language)Software versioningDependency (UML)Software packageCode (set theory)Software release life cycleSoftwareSoftware engineeringOperating systemWorld Wide WebDatabaseProgramming languageSoftware developmentSoftware quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cargo, the software packaging manager of Rust, provides a yank mechanism to support release-level deprecation, which can prevent packages from depending on yanked releases. Most prior studies focused on code-level (i.e., deprecated APIs) and package-level deprecation (i.e., deprecated packages). However, few studies have focused on release-level deprecation. In this study, we investigate how often and how the yank mechanism is used, the rationales behind its usage, and the adoption of yanked releases in the Cargo ecosystem. Our study shows that 9.6% of the packages in Cargo have at least one yanked release, and the proportion of yanked releases kept increasing from 2014 to 2020. Package owners yank releases for other reasons than withdrawing a defective release, such as fixing a release that does not follow semantic versioning or indicating a package is removed or replaced. In addition, we found that 46% of the packages directly adopted at least one yanked release and the yanked releases propagated through the dependency network, which leads to 1.4% of the releases in the ecosystem having unresolved dependencies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207