Dependency Update Strategies and Package Characteristics
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".