3 ms·
I had the same immediate reaction that you did, but the key here is that the age of dependencies is not absolute but calculated against the latest release. So
by eadmund 2y ago
I had the same immediate reaction that you did, but the key here is that the age of dependencies is not absolute but calculated against the latest release. So a one-day-old dependency with no succeeding version is 0 libyears old, not 1/365.24. Likewise for a decade-old release, if it is in fact the latest release.
It’s about the time delta between the used version and the latest available version.
- thih9 2y agoBut this still means that you're either on the latest version or 39 libyears behind (if you count all dependencies of dependencies of dependencies...)
- tlb 2y agoI think each dependency is only counted once, even if it’s recursively included many times.
- robertlagrant 2y agoAdding transitive dependencies might be tricker, because then you can't tell what of your direct dependencies to upgrade. It might be more useful to assign each direct dependency's transitives to it, and then you can do maths to figure out whether updating a direct dependency actually has an effect (e.g. 2 directs both with a 50 lib year dependency aren't worth upgrading unless you upgrade both of them.)