5 ms·
You don't need to wait for Y3k. 21xx is enough to cause duplication. There is software still running from over 50 years ago. I'd imagine new releases have come
by mfer 7y ago
You don't need to wait for Y3k. 21xx is enough to cause duplication.
There is software still running from over 50 years ago. I'd imagine new releases have come out. But, this may be a legit problem some day.
- CodesInChaos 7y agoThis specification defines `YY` and `0Y` as switching to 3 digits for 21xx (i.e. it outputs it as 1xx).
- Sean1708 7y agoThe upside being that releasing a new version with a different version scheme isn't a time-sensitive task, the old version isn't going to stop working just because the new version number wouldn't be valid.
- 0xffff2 7y agoChanging versioning schemes comes with its own set of problems. There is rather famously no "Windows 9" because enough people detected Windows 95/98 with the equivalent of a regex looking for "Windows 9*" that Microsoft thought it might be a problem.
- Sean1708 7y agoMy point isn't that it has no downsides, my point is that it would be a far less pressing issue than Y2K was.