Perhaps they thought they would improve on the 2 digit method of representing years, and used a single digit method instead? ie: 2009(9) -> 2010(0) I would be

Perhaps they thought they would improve on the 2 digit method of representing years, and used a single digit method instead? ie: 2009(9) -> 2010(0) I would be pretty sad if it was a bug as obvious as this though. No idea what the real bug is likely to be...