[Yum-devel] [RFC] dbversion 10

[Jeremy Katz]

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 16:24 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 16:11 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > If we're careful not to break API, then I'd be okay with going with
> it
> > for pre 3.2 as long as we got it in very soon and got a package into
> > rawhide for a little testing prior to F7 test4.  
> 
> I think we'll be chasing down places where we've done str(epoch) or
> int(epoch) w/o really thinking appropriately and had it magically work
> in the past. I'm not opposed to it for 3.2 but time seems tight.

If we keep epoch a string (as it's been in the past), then that's not a
problem though, no?

The conversion of the other things seems pretty straight forward as I
think that their usage is far more constrained

Jeremy