OFBiz Y2K Bug?

[Ean Schuessler]

Is it just me or is this new revision system going to give us the same kinds of trouble that '89 style dates did in the late 1900s? I guess people will put up with revision numbers like 125.03 but they may get tired of saying 125 all the time and just say 25. Will that cause confusion between versions from the current century and version from the previous one?

Just figured we should be proactive.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
[hidden email] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315

[Adrian Crum]

Not to mention the millennial bug - what happens after the year 9999?

-Adrian

Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Is it just me or is this new revision system going to give us the same kinds of trouble that '89 style dates did in the late 1900s? I guess people will put up with revision numbers like 125.03 but they may get tired of saying 125 all the time and just say 25. Will that cause confusion between versions from the current century and version from the previous one?
>
> Just figured we should be proactive.
>

[David E Jones-3]

This was part of my reason for a last minute coup to have it be  
"09.04" instead of just "9.04".

As for the year 2100... chances are this versioning approach will be  
out of fashion by then. OFBiz will certainly still be around, but  
we've already changed version numbering once in 8 years, so chances  
are in the next 91 years either we or our successors will decide to  
change it.

If we're lucky there will be a new world government between now and  
then, and chances are such a government would think its establishment  
SO important that it decides to start with year/month/day zero as the  
day of its founding. In that case it's a moot point, and/or would be a  
lower priority given all of the new government regulations to suddenly  
comply with.

Oh well, just as with the themes deprecation issue my real feeling is  
that I've given up on predicting the future (I keep getting it wrong  
damn it!), so I'm fine with waiting to see what happens... ;)

As a case in point: much to the chagrin of my survivalist friends  
nothing really happened with the 1999/2000 turnover. Unfortunately  
software just isn't that important, and fortunately software may be  
complicated but is really pretty malleable. Anyway, I guess personally  
I'm more concerned that in the USA public and private debt plus  
floating bank liabilities that haven't landed yet are approaching 50%  
of the gross value of the entire country (and I guess the USA is not  
alone in this either).

Anyway, that's why I say that OFBiz will still be around in 91 years  
(so this is a good point!). Even if there is hyperinflation or other  
catastrophes something that has no financial liabilities will survive  
whereas certain other things may not. Of course, there is always legal  
liabilities but the project can survive somewhere in the world unless  
there is a one world government that outlaws non-commercial  
software... ;)

Well, enough of that... I'm back to enjoying my right-wing, ultra-
conservative, compound proponing, morbidly delightful but hopelessly  
paranoid, TEOTWAWKI literature. Lucky for all of us there are  
evidently some people who CAN see the future, at least hopefully  
better than I can... or hopefully not as the case may be.

Too much fun...

-David


On May 8, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Is it just me or is this new revision system going to give us the  
> same kinds of trouble that '89 style dates did in the late 1900s? I  
> guess people will put up with revision numbers like 125.03 but they  
> may get tired of saying 125 all the time and just say 25. Will that  
> cause confusion between versions from the current century and  
> version from the previous one?
>
> Just figured we should be proactive.
>
> --
> Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
> [hidden email] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315

[Jacques Le Roux]

Destiny and future have more imagination than us, I prefer to not worry.
Strangely, this make me remember about P.K Dick books

Jacques

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> This was part of my reason for a last minute coup to have it be  
> "09.04" instead of just "9.04".
>
> As for the year 2100... chances are this versioning approach will be  
> out of fashion by then. OFBiz will certainly still be around, but  
> we've already changed version numbering once in 8 years, so chances  
> are in the next 91 years either we or our successors will decide to  
> change it.
>
> If we're lucky there will be a new world government between now and  
> then, and chances are such a government would think its establishment  
> SO important that it decides to start with year/month/day zero as the  
> day of its founding. In that case it's a moot point, and/or would be a  
> lower priority given all of the new government regulations to suddenly  
> comply with.
>
> Oh well, just as with the themes deprecation issue my real feeling is  
> that I've given up on predicting the future (I keep getting it wrong  
> damn it!), so I'm fine with waiting to see what happens... ;)
>
> As a case in point: much to the chagrin of my survivalist friends  
> nothing really happened with the 1999/2000 turnover. Unfortunately  
> software just isn't that important, and fortunately software may be  
> complicated but is really pretty malleable. Anyway, I guess personally  
> I'm more concerned that in the USA public and private debt plus  
> floating bank liabilities that haven't landed yet are approaching 50%  
> of the gross value of the entire country (and I guess the USA is not  
> alone in this either).
>
> Anyway, that's why I say that OFBiz will still be around in 91 years  
> (so this is a good point!). Even if there is hyperinflation or other  
> catastrophes something that has no financial liabilities will survive  
> whereas certain other things may not. Of course, there is always legal  
> liabilities but the project can survive somewhere in the world unless  
> there is a one world government that outlaws non-commercial  
> software... ;)
>
> Well, enough of that... I'm back to enjoying my right-wing, ultra-
> conservative, compound proponing, morbidly delightful but hopelessly  
> paranoid, TEOTWAWKI literature. Lucky for all of us there are  
> evidently some people who CAN see the future, at least hopefully  
> better than I can... or hopefully not as the case may be.
>
> Too much fun...
>
> -David
>
>
> On May 8, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
>> Is it just me or is this new revision system going to give us the  
>> same kinds of trouble that '89 style dates did in the late 1900s? I  
>> guess people will put up with revision numbers like 125.03 but they  
>> may get tired of saying 125 all the time and just say 25. Will that  
>> cause confusion between versions from the current century and  
>> version from the previous one?
>>
>> Just figured we should be proactive.
>>
>> --
>> Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
>> [hidden email] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
>