Dependency Update Strategies and Package Characteristics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing project dependencies is a key maintenance issue in software development. Developers need to choose an update strategy that allows them to receive important updates and fixes while protecting them from breaking changes. Semantic Versioning was proposed to address this dilemma, but many have opted for more restrictive or permissive alternatives. This empirical study explores the association between package characteristics and the dependency update strategy selected by its dependents to understand how developers select and change their update strategies. We study over 112,000 Node Package Manager (npm) packages and use 19 characteristics to build a prediction model that identifies the common dependency update strategy for each package. Our model achieves a minimum improvement of 72% over the baselines and is much better aligned with community decisions than the npm default strategy. We investigate how different package characteristics can influence the predicted update strategy and find that dependent count, age, and release status to be the highest influencing features. We complement the work with qualitative analyses of 160 packages to investigate the evolution of update strategies. While the common update strategy remains consistent for many packages, certain events such as the release of the 1.0.0 version or breaking changes influence the selected update strategy over time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it