3 ms·
I'm always surprised at how often developers freeze a set of versions and leave them for a lifetime. In my past three companies I have been the only one interes
by web007 7y ago
I'm always surprised at how often developers freeze a set of versions and leave them for a lifetime. In my past three companies I have been the only one interested in pushing dependencies on a regular basis. I always start with a massive backlog, and end up having to incrementally update from the Stone Age to $today. Once that's set and tests pass it's easy to keep things up-to-date, you end up with single-digit changes every month instead of ~100 every year.
Do it this way and save yourself the pain of zillions of updates when you HAVE to bump a package for a CVE.
- BurningFrog 7y agoYet another case of "if it hurts, do it more often" https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FrequencyReducesDifficulty.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FrequencyReducesDifficulty.ht...
- njharman 7y agoWord! And same for me at new jobs. I also tend to be the one who writes docs, gets testing automated, CI. Too many developers think banging out code as fast as they can is "doing their job well".
- paulddraper 7y agoBut the journey from A to B to C to D is longer than A to D. You can get whiplash from conforming to every change in the winds.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoThis. Skipping B and C needs to be managed like any other technical debt, but it can pay off. It's not your job to regression test every intermediate version of everyone's libraries.