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 _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
