Actually the amusing part is that the problem that affects yearly
archives in 2000 actually has nothing to do with Y2K. It is a silly
error in the code, files whose extension only contains letters and
the digit 0 are never recognised as archive files. This can only
happen in 2000, 3000, 4000, etc, and only for yearly archives.
This code was not reviewed during Y2K audit because it
does not deal with dates at all and thus could not possibly fail in
2000 ;-) When I found the problem I started wondering how many
non-Y2K bugs were uncovered and fixed during Y2K test procedures.
Going through the code with a fine comb and running extensive tests
is bound to have uncovered a lot of non-Y2K problems and generally
improved the quality of software across the board. For how long, well,
THAT is the $65,535 question :-)

  Eric