4 ms·

Remember that updating references is usually a global update. Now you have to test EVERYTHING that used that reference. I've had so many projects bitten by an

Remember that updating references is usually a global update. Now you have to test EVERYTHING that used that reference. I've had so many projects bitten by an overzealous dev who decided to update the version of a library because newer = better and then we spent the next three weeks chasing bugs/differences between the versions. Edit: Curious about the down votes. Would someone who disagrees care to illuminate me?

itamarst 8y ago
Not sure why the downvotes, it's a good point.
sixstringtheory 8y ago
Not a downvoter, but when I saw your reply it made me think that you may need a better process around maintaining dependencies. At least IMO, best practice is to continually evaluate and adopt updates to dependencies. I’d rather have a slow trickle of problems associated with continuous updates, than have a total firefight when you realize you have to upgrade, now, and you have neither solid plans and practice in place to do so, nor the time because you’re in the middle of yet another feature drop that is pushing tech debt to the breaking point. Setting and forgetting dependencies is like saying you have a backup somewhere, but never actually testing if you can recover from it. That’s the kind of thing that could turn a routine outage into a crippling emergency.
- steverb 8y ago
  Fair point.