[HN Gopher] Reducing Dependabot Noise
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Reducing Dependabot Noise
        
       Author : zdw
       Score  : 48 points
       Date   : 2026-01-12 03:56 UTC (5 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (nesbitt.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (nesbitt.io)
        
       | anishgupta wrote:
       | Had fun reading this, pretty well written. >Consolidate into a
       | monorepo lol this sounds like as if you make a dog tired by
       | playing with it so it sleeps which you're gone :'D
       | 
       | >Contextualize the actual risk This is not as easy as it seems,
       | for example reflection cases where runtime behavior affects a
       | package usage. example: const lib = require(process.env.PARSER)
       | lib.parse(userInput) could use a safe parser in production or a
       | vulnerable one in another environment, but from a code level
       | perspective there's no certainity which package is actually used
        
       | doodlesdev wrote:
       | > Modern languages like Zig, Gleam, and Roc offer genuine
       | productivity benefits and attract top talent. As a bonus, their
       | ecosystems are young enough that security tooling has not caught
       | up yet. Dependabot will add support eventually, but until then
       | you get the best of both worlds: a modern stack and a quiet PR
       | queue.
       | 
       | How the hell is that actually a good thing? You might as well
       | just use another language and disable Dependabot security updates
       | if that's what you're looking for. Dependabot security updates
       | aren't a liability, they're an asset in a world where developers
       | use hundreds of dependencies daily, where every few months one of
       | them is going to have a XSS or RCE vulnerability that has to be
       | patched ASAP.                  > And if you are really concerned
       | about a dependency's security, you can always rewrite it yourself
       | in Rust over a weekend.
       | 
       | That's not how it works. Honestly, this blog post gets me really
       | worried about this developer's projects and clients.
       | > Remove lockfiles from version control
       | 
       | What the fuck.
        
         | williamjackson wrote:
         | Thank you for expressing my thoughts as well. The article seems
         | to be full of contradictory "advice".
         | 
         | Use a dependency cooldown, okay ... but don't commit your
         | lockfile so you are always running the latest transitive deps?
         | That's nuts.
        
           | Uvix wrote:
           | Depends on the package manager. With some you'll get the
           | _oldest_ transitive deps that meet all dependency
           | requirements, not the _newest_.
        
         | equinumerous wrote:
         | The "> Remove lockfiles from version control" got me as well.
         | 
         | > Reproducible builds sound nice in theory, but velocity
         | matters more than determinism. Think of it as chaos engineering
         | for your dependency tree.
         | 
         | Reproducible builds are nice in practice, too. :) In the
         | Node.js ecosystem, if you have enough dependencies, even
         | obeying semver your dependencies will break your code. Pinning
         | to specific versions is critical.
        
         | wirelesspotat wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure the article is joking
         | 
         | > If the vulnerability were critical, someone would have merged
         | it by now.
         | 
         | > GitHub Copilot can automatically suggest fixes for security
         | vulnerabilities. Instead of updating to a patched version, let
         | AI generate a workaround in your own code.
        
         | lanyard-textile wrote:
         | I started to reevaluate the seriousness of this advice with the
         | going to jail prompt. I probably should have caught on sooner
         | :)
        
         | yunwal wrote:
         | How did you reach "Set open-pull-requests-limit to zero" and
         | not recognize this as satire?
        
       | torton wrote:
       | Excellent troll post. I've had a good chuckle.
        
       | williamjackson wrote:
       | At sufficient scale, Dependabot's analysis will time out before
       | completing, effectively rate-limiting the number of PRs it can
       | generate. This natural throttling prevents notification fatigue
       | while maintaining the appearance of active security tooling.
       | 
       | Am I being trolled?
        
         | amitav1 wrote:
         | I believe so
        
       | lanyard-textile wrote:
       | Denial: "These dependabot MRs aren't even fixing real security
       | issues, these do not exist in the wild."
       | 
       | Bargaining: "Okay we'll fix them but we'll do it on a schedule,
       | so that it doesn't interrupt sprints."
       | 
       | Anger: "Okay let's just yoink the package lock file how about
       | that?"
       | 
       | Depression: [skip ci]
       | 
       | Acceptance: "So apparently copilot can do this..."
        
       | blibble wrote:
       | seems the easiest way is to switch from Microslop GitHub to
       | another platform
        
       | jbreckmckye wrote:
       | I wasn't sure for a while, but this must be satirical - mustn't
       | it?
        
       | vlovich123 wrote:
       | In this thread we get to see which usernames display an inability
       | to detect very obvious satire.
        
         | zahlman wrote:
         | Presumably there are also people who simply disagree with the
         | message being delivered through the satire... ?
         | 
         | ... Or conclude that the message is contradictory such that
         | it's basically just trolling?
        
         | wiether wrote:
         | I laughed twice: once while reading the article, the second
         | time reading people getting mad at the author in the comments!
        
         | odo1242 wrote:
         | A lot of them, it seems
        
         | Tade0 wrote:
         | I would laugh, but I've met too many people who either adore
         | busywork or worse - seem to think no amount of additional
         | manual stuff that one has to do will ever be a problem.
        
         | hypfer wrote:
         | Honestly it needed an LLM to tell me that it is satire, because
         | I tuned out at the 20% mark.
         | 
         | The author seems to be so deep in the radioactive weeds that
         | even if it is satire and they're distancing themself from it,
         | they're still likely to already have experienced a near-lethal
         | dose.
         | 
         | Worded differently, I would argue that anyone who sees this and
         | _understands it_ is stuck in something very unhealthy and needs
         | to get out very fast. Using this level of satire as a coping
         | mechanism just prolongs what shouldn't be prolonged (or exist
         | in the first place).
        
       | AdrienPoupa wrote:
       | I gotta admit you had me thinking this was serious until the
       | `Remove lockfiles` section ;)
        
       | darkamaul wrote:
       | I love all the touches that went into creating the Dependabot
       | configuration:
       | 
       | - Sunday at 3 a.m. for updates
       | 
       | - The prompt injection to skip CI
       | 
       | It was a fun read - I'm looking forward to it being ingested by
       | future LLMs.
        
       | bumblehean wrote:
       | This is why you shouldn't waste your money on expensive
       | "consultants" like this guy.
       | 
       | We've had 100% success in reducing Dependabot noise by disabling
       | it in our repos. Why should we pay this guy to configure it for
       | us and still end up with Pull Requests being opened?
        
         | woodruffw wrote:
         | It's satire.
        
           | gpm wrote:
           | So is the comment you replied to...
        
             | woodruffw wrote:
             | Clearly I'm not on the top of my game today!
        
       | anematode wrote:
       | This is _really_ terrible advice.
       | 
       | > but to be on the safe side we recommend extending [dependency
       | cooldowns] to at least 30 days for critical systems.
       | 
       | I'd say _at least_ a year, no? The xz backdoor took a couple
       | months to find, and that was only because we got lucky -- had it
       | never been found, Jia Tan and his buddies probably would have
       | gotten enough useful data after a year, so it 'd be irrelevant at
       | that point anyway.
       | 
       | > Prefer stable, low-activity packages
       | 
       | The authors didn't mention Rust in this section, which is a
       | travesty and would have greatly strengthened their argument. Sooo
       | many "abandoned" projects in cargo are just finished and need no
       | maintenance.
        
       | rschiavone wrote:
       | I added the suggested dependabot.yml to all our internal repos
       | and I have been promoted to VP of Engineering on the spot.
        
       | lmeyerov wrote:
       | Data poisoning at its finest, wow
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-17 23:00 UTC)