[Yum-devel] [RFC] dbversion 10

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 16:31 -0400, James Bowes wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> >> If we keep epoch a string (as it's been in the past), then that's not a
> >> problem though, no?
> > 
> > agreed.
> > 
> > 
> >> The conversion of the other things seems pretty straight forward as I
> >> think that their usage is far more constrained
> > 
> > also agreed.
> > 
> > I just wanted to make sure I made mention of the epoch bit, again, if we
> > were thinking about it for pre-3.2
> 
> So to summarize, are you two are thinking that we apply the patch as
> emailed, minus anything relating to epoch?
> 
> Meaning that API breaks for anyone who treats build_time as a string
> (whoever that might be), but does not break for epoch related code. Also
> meaning that epoch is still stored as a string in the db.

That sounds about right to me, yes.

Jeremy?
-sv