On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 16:23 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > 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?
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 -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
