When a website has been running for a while without any spectacular issues, we can be tempted to set that code aside for an extended time.
After all, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, right? Perhaps we'll wait for a high-leverage feature and that will be the kick we need to dust the project off.
As much as we want to call our software "done" at a certain point so we can stop putting further investment into it, the fact is that all software will degrade in some ways over time.
The features that work will probably continue to work (unless they depend on external services that could break or change), but other pieces of that software's lifecycle are shifting and changing underneath it.
The answers to two key questions determine how often a program or platform needs to get an update:
Does it run on the internet or a third-party service?
Will the software need additional features and changes?
If the answer to either of those questions is yes, the project should be on a regular maintenance cycle.
1. Does it run on the internet or a third-party service?
The world of the internet is constantly moving and changing. Software that was considered secure becomes insecure once a vulnerability is discovered. The problems that arise may not be directly in custom application code, either.
Code libraries save time in application development and enable developers to efficiently generate workflow-specific features without reinventing the wheel.
For example, different code libraries can allow users to authenticate with a username or password or another login method depending on the library.
If a vulnerability is discovered in the library we use for users to log in and get privileged access to certain information and features, every program that depends on that library is now inherently vulnerable.
Dependence on third-party services can also require updates. For example, the procedure for embedding a Google Map on a page has changed a few times over the years.
Or, if you're using a platform like Twilio for automated messaging, you can see new categories of errors that the program hasn't handled.
Some internet-enabled products are built with installers and used on many devices by many users. Pushing updates to those instances may not be top-of-mind when developing the software because the team is focused on features.
The maintenance cycle should be a first-class citizen in the feature framework - we don't want to get into a situation where we can no longer push updates to a myriad of clients.
2. Will the software need additional features and changes?
If the code is stale and we want to add a feature, we can proceed down one of two paths:
We could require the developers to build as much as possible with the existing dependencies.
This strategy will end up hamstringing the development team.They may have experience in what a set of libraries did some months or years ago, but their active and productive knowledge is in the current context.
This sacrifices both their instant recall and any potential improvements made to those libraries in the interim.
Ultimately, the developers will be less productive and cost more money and time.
We can prefix the feature development with a maintenance push.
The farther apart these pushes happen, though, the more moving pieces are in play.
We could find that multiple dependencies have made significant updates and changes. Typically, the most efficient way to work through such things is to update one library, get the test suite working, and then update the other one.
But if too many interdependent relationships have major changes, the feasibility of this approach goes to zero. At that point, we're left with breaking everything and then attempting to get it all working again.
Both of these approaches sacrifice efficiency due to extra work required.
The counterpoint to these approaches is simple: quick maintenance cycles should be quick.
If all we're doing is updating dependencies and perhaps resolving a small incompatibility here and there, very little effort is involved. At that point, we can plan quick cycles every 2-3 months to keep things fresh with minimal effort.
Maintain for the Long Run
Regular maintenance cycles aren’t just a technical necessity—they’re an investment in your software’s longevity and stability.
By integrating short, consistent maintenance cycles into your software, you can avoid these pitfalls and keep your software agile. A little proactive upkeep every few months can prevent the headaches of outdated dependencies, security vulnerabilities, and disruptive feature rollouts.
Ignoring updates for too long can turn minor incompatibilities into major roadblocks, forcing development teams into costly, time-consuming overhauls.
In the end, software that’s actively maintained is software that remains reliable, scalable, and ready for the next feature.