This is a hugely misleading indicator to rely on. Not only it sums up all the time behind in dependencies which is more than confusing to start with but it also leaves the end user puzzle what to do with this information.
Let's assume my software project is 120 "libyears" behind. What's next? What risks am I exposed to? What should I do?
Think of a notorious python2 vs. python3. I am in 2019 and my software project has it as a dependency. My team has assessed that migration to v.3 will require another year of dealing with all the breaking changes. And while brainstorming we are thinking from the risk and cost-benefit perspective. Time per se is relevant only in the context of effort required to perform the migration.
From the supply chain security standpoint I could not care less about time as well. If I am using library X of version 1.2.3 and it ticks all the boxes, has no performance impact, has 0 problems, 0 vulnerabilities (including the results from public, third party and internal code audits) I will continue using it even if version 2 is out, especially if it requires reassessment of risks and some code refactoring due to breaking API changes.
If I want to automate my dependency management I will rely on tools that will tell me about my risks or potential missed benefits from the newer versions. Time will be taken into account only in terms of time needed for mitigating the risks directly impacting my piece of software.
If I am using library X of version 1.2.3 and it ticks all the boxes, has no performance impact, has 0 problems, 0 vulnerabilities (including the results from public, third party and internal code audits) I will continue using it even if version 2 is out, especially if it requires reassessment of risks and some code refactoring due to breaking API changes.
What happens if the library that you're using is completely fine on its own (think React 18) but it's a core cross-dependency for tons of other libraries in your project. No libraries or frameworks should be considered in isolation. Otherwise, it can lead to a situation where you can't use some of the other tools/libraries, etc., because of the other dependency that is quite out of date.
Comments
This is a hugely misleading indicator to rely on. Not only it sums up all the time behind in dependencies which is more than confusing to start with but it also leaves the end user puzzle what to do with this information.
Let's assume my software project is 120 "libyears" behind. What's next? What risks am I exposed to? What should I do?
Think of a notorious python2 vs. python3. I am in 2019 and my software project has it as a dependency. My team has assessed that migration to v.3 will require another year of dealing with all the breaking changes. And while brainstorming we are thinking from the risk and cost-benefit perspective. Time per se is relevant only in the context of effort required to perform the migration.
From the supply chain security standpoint I could not care less about time as well. If I am using library X of version 1.2.3 and it ticks all the boxes, has no performance impact, has 0 problems, 0 vulnerabilities (including the results from public, third party and internal code audits) I will continue using it even if version 2 is out, especially if it requires reassessment of risks and some code refactoring due to breaking API changes.
If I want to automate my dependency management I will rely on tools that will tell me about my risks or potential missed benefits from the newer versions. Time will be taken into account only in terms of time needed for mitigating the risks directly impacting my piece of software.
What happens if the library that you're using is completely fine on its own (think React 18) but it's a core cross-dependency for tons of other libraries in your project. No libraries or frameworks should be considered in isolation. Otherwise, it can lead to a situation where you can't use some of the other tools/libraries, etc., because of the other dependency that is quite out of date.