The site uses cookies that you may not want. Continued use means acceptance. For more information see our privacy policy.

Knowing the Greatest Bug Number

Looking at the idea of using years and months as part of numbering bugs for bug trackers.

Most open-source projects have a bug tracker, and bugs are numbered sequentially. Thus, knowing the highest existing bug number (GBN) is an important piece of information if you’re looking for what you believe is a new (globally, not just new to you) bug.

You do a search for bugs, and one of the things you see is their number. If you know roughly what the GBN is, you can tell at a glance whether the bugs in your search results are new or old. That will give you important information, as a bug from ten years ago, from a deprecated version that won’t even run with your current libraries, etc. is probably not your bug.

Of course, technically knowing the GBN isn’t sufficient. You must also have some vague idea of the reporting cadence. That is, if GNB is 600K, and you’re looking at bug 550K, the rough time to accumulate the intervening 50K bugs could be large or small. And the cadence changes, probably following an elliptical orbit (speeding up close to release, slowing down at the midpoint between releases).

The question is, would it make sense to change how bugs are numbered? Would it make more sense to have bugs numbered like: YYYYMM-NNN? Adding in DD would probably be too fine-grained, but months probably fit well for most projects.

Bug numbers do not have an inherent meaning. They are already security-compromised in terms of giving away the timeframe they were filed. (That can be avoided by squirreling away some numbers and filing them late, but it’s unlikely to be done in open source. Even if it were, you could still squirrel some date-stamped bug numbers.)

You would lose guess-the-date-for-bug-N contests, though you could technically still hold one, it would just be using bug numbers people don’t refer to as often.

You might also gain a benefit: developers would have the date-of-filing staring them in the face every time they referenced a bug. I don’t think that would really matter; software gets built as best it can. Most unfixed bugs aren’t from laziness, but from difficulty, lack of information, and lack of time.

The other side of that is the users who will say, “this bug is five years old.” They already exist, though, so it doesn’t seem like this adds to that problem.

But having a year-month-numbered bug can, in some cases, give an immediate idea of a project’s size. A bug like YYYYMM-1 won’t, but a bug like YYYYMM-2468 will. They’re getting at least thousands of bugs per month.

There might be some technical issues. Will a bug database handle a lookup as easily when fragmented into years and months? Should there be that dash or should it be YYYYMMNN? Will people think the Ns are days?

What other benefits would this scheme achieve? Could you type MMNNN for the current year in a search? Or NNN for the current month? Will people get frustrated when it’s the first day of the month and their bug now needs to be typed out? Could you use some shorthand for that case?

I think using partial dates rather than purely sequential bug numbers (at least as an alias; there’s probably value in keeping the regular, sequential numbers, too) may have some use, but what do you think?

Cult Thinking and Terrorists

Looking at some of the links between cultist thinking and terrorism.

Tragic events pain us, and even more so for the failure of media to put them in the proper context. The media fails to educate, to the point they prefer to run with gossip and innuendo to purely educational content to fill dead air.

On some issues they may paint a fair picture, such as when they cover cults. Most of the time the cult harm to society comes in alienation and wasting of resources. The media seldom covers cults unless their harm grows far beyond this basic level, to mass suicide or worse.

But many events we see in the news are intimately related to the sort of cultural relativism needed to understand cults. None more so than terrorism, and the world view that allows for it.

First one should might contrast the reaction to domestic incidents with those that take place overseas. The media tends to barely report terrorist bombings in Iraq, for example. They certainly do not follow any manhunts, seek out family, neighbors, and other acquaintances to interview, and the like.

This itself shows the sort of tribal and cultist worldview. The value difference based purely on nationality or locality becomes essential to terrorism and cults in general. But that value finds itself lacing most any culture.

The feature of the media that stands out as an unanswered question (the media should both ask questions and answer or seek answers to questions): ‘how could terrorists kill the innocent (children, civilians)?’ But worse than media, this sentiment arises from elected officials (which suggests the need for a Constitutional Amendment requiring continuing education for all legislators).

The basic formula of the cult, of terrorists:

  1. The world differs from how you learned to view it (and therefore from how your teachers view it and how their group views it).
  2. There will be calamity unless either most people come to view it correctly.
  3. For peoples’ minds to change, YOU must participate in some activity that you wouldn’t do without our programming.

It’s a little more involved, especially using ego control (using emotional abuse to train the person to become dependent on the cult (and more importantly on fulfillment of their promise) for emotional health), isolation (to prevent opportunities for cognitive dissonance), and other techniques.

The belief that one’s soul hangs upon carrying out a religious/ritualistic promise to the gods, and that not continuing once promised would essentially doom one to hellfire illustrates why many single out religion as a problem. But that can be said equally of any religion that posits the existence of a hell, and pointing to the non-cultist believers as both wrong and faithful simply strengthens the belief.

To understand the act of terror one must unpack the meaning not as it appears to the asker, but to the terrorist or cultist worldview. Ultimately the prevention of terrorism relies upon this sort of thinking. Some measure of terrorist acts may be prevented through law enforcement and military operations. Most terrorism will need to be literally disarmed through cultural actions not violent actions.

But society needs this sort of understanding not just for combating terrorism, but cults, racism, and fascism of all sorts. We need to be taught to unpack our own culture from time to time and recognize the dysfunctional and functional parts. It doesn’t ruin a thing to understand it, yet it seems a part of our culture believes exactly that it does.

Getting Past the Reflexive Response

One of the phenomena we see in discussions of changes to society is a purely reflexive response. We see this both affirmatively and negatively, depending on the way the issue is couched. Reflexive responses can kill whole families of ideas, and we should seek to minimize their influence.

One of the phenomena we see in discussions of changes to society is a purely reflexive response. We see this both affirmatively and negatively, depending on the way the issue is couched. A guess is that the responses tend to be more negative, that reflexive responses in general tend to be “no.”

New York City, a city in the US state of New York, recently enacted a law against certain food establishments selling soft drinks containing more than 16 fl. ounces (approx. 0.5 liters). Many people had a reflexive response against that move. The belief that both individuals and businesses should have the right to make that sort of decision, rather than government, fired rapidly in the mind. This was followed by the section of the brain containing the term, “nanny state,” jumping up and down, yelling, “me! me! me!”

While I think a reasonable person can disagree with the implementation of the ban, it’s harder to make a case against the idea that people should drink less fizzy sugar water. But let’s set that case aside, and just focus on the reflex.

It seems like the reflex is a combination of the brain having existing wiring for the type of argument and a tendency to take a defensive posture against change. We see the same disposition in many subcultures, including political and religious ones.

In the case of soft drinks, people have encountered dietary arguments for years from vegetarian, vegan, and similar dietary movements. The anti-smoking arguments also follow similar lines. With recent studies showing correlation between social connections and things like weight gain and diet, even the second-hand smoke arguments have a home here.

People also have received reinforcement from something like sipping on a soft drink while having positive social interactions, so much that some may be able to tell you that they enjoyed a particular flavor of drink during a particular interaction (not unlike people remembering specific times with specific types of alcohol).

The notion of giving up something that seemed to add to an experience is threatening. It usually takes several nearby nodes in the network making a change in order to encourage more nodes to change.

Not In My Back Yard, or NIMBY, is another example of a mantric argument that is conjured when a reflexive response occurs. Windmills are often opposed as a reflex.

The notion of job security has paralyzed whole sectors of the economy, as we become afraid to modernize and shift economic focuses because of large blocks of employment. That is, we place employment as a higher importance than the economic functionality that would ensure it.

There are reflexive responses when someone denigrates a prophet, or when a community perceives a travesty of justice, and so on.

How do we get past these reflexes? How do we get sane arguments that don’t run into walls of no-from-the-hip?

My hunch on this is that society, or whatever group seeks to have good arguments, assigns advocates regardless of belief. Just like high school debaters, people can advocate for causes they don’t necessarily believe in. It gives an opportunity for new ideas to prosper in a way that doesn’t stigmatize initial advocates too severely (which risks blanching future dissent, leading to further totalitarianization of a group).

Likewise, increasing opportunities for interaction and shifting of social links would enable more nodes to recognize opportunities for different behaviors. Although anecdotal (in that I haven’t looked for any research that backs this up), I find it likely that part of the positive impact of World War II on the US economy stemmed from the mixing of all those young people, along with their exposure to diverse social orders across the globe.

At any rate, reflexive responses should be seen for what they are. We shouldn’t let them kill good ideas, but should allow ourselves to entertain the idea without fear that it will consume us. Society needs to learn how to do that.