• thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sorry everyone, I opened a new branch off the 2003 release while I was researching some of the bugs in the legacy code. That wasn’t supposed to get merged in…

    • wia@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This just further confirms that the world simulation actually did break from the y2k bug. We fixed the bug in here, but no one fixed the simulation. The cascade failure has just been spreading out of control since then. Now we have recursion errors! The sim tried to restart but it’s all corrupt lol.

      • thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I think the root problem lies in some of the really gnarly, pre-1.0 code that we are afraid to touch because it might break something, that’s why it keeps cropping up even though we keep slapping patches pell-mell on top of it. It just happened to pop out pretty bad in 03.

      • thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 hours ago

        yep, the bug triggers when a political party overflows its buffer. The funny thing is, the system still catches the error and spams the logs with FATAL error messages, but the system has been throwing them for so long and seems to still be chugging along so we kind of ignore them. One of the original devs made a comment about how someone should fix it right before leaving the team. Anyway, the effect tends to accumulate, so if you deploy it to prod and don’t fix it, eventually you get… this.

        My bad.

        • RebekahWSD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Fix it Fix it Fix it Fix it!

          (I tried to find the Futurama meme of that, but my phone said No)

          • thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Trying, I’m stuck on a bridge with some of the seniors right now. One of them wants to “just push through and see what happens” and roll forward with the change, the other one disapproves but clearly has no idea what else to do. Nobody seems to want to even propose a plan because then they’d be on the hook for it, so we just keep going back and forth and not. ending. the call.

    • loweffortname@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This is why I’ve been arguing against rebase merges. If we aren’t super careful with older branches, we end up with messes like this. Maybe just squash and merge in the future?

      • thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t know, this whole situation could have been avoided if people would just check with the team before merging stuff. I think people see revisions from old releases so they just merge them because they “worked before” so they should work now. It doesn’t work for the current userbase, frankly it didn’t work all that well for most users back when it was released the first time. Just merging any old crap straight into main without reading it so they can brag about how many PRs they close.