Click bait title, its about a bug that has the value "ten years " as part of the issue, not a bug that took ten tears to solve like the title implies...
Terrible title. Poor article.<p>Anyway, 10 years is way too long for caching. A week is just fine, that's plenty long to not have many requests, but not so long you can never change anything.<p>Plus if your user hasn't been there in a week, why are you still in their cache?
I'm curious how it got set to 10 years seemingly without anyone noticing.<p>Then again, after going to their main site to find out what Jaco is...<p><i>The easiest way to watch and analyze your users’ behavior</i><p>...perhaps some bugs are better left unfixed. :-/
I would be surprised if browsers really would cache a file for 10 years. That sounds excessive and browsers shouldn't trust servers too much anyway.<p>At least when they are updated, I'd expect them to flush the cache.
Two hard things in computer science:<p>- cache invalidation: check (root cause of the actual bug);<p>- naming things: check (terrible name for an article, as others already pointed out).
I have a non-reproducible bug (at least I think it's just one and I've failed to reproduce it) in my software.<p>It causes the entire UI to disappear and the user ends up opening a new instance of the program. I only know it exists because about once every few months a user can't upgrade and when I remote in and look in the task manager, an instance of the program is running.
I have an idea how to track it down and fix it but there's always something more important to be done.