Using timestamp instead of sequence

[mrkuzzmin]

Changes are made for this issue -
#81

[TimMikeladze]

thanks for the pr!

Is this backwards compatible? Meaning that if someone used the old migration naming scheme and then updates to this new version, will all the migrations still function and apply in the expected order?

I would very much prefer not to introduce a breaking change here.

[mrkuzzmin]

Migrations with old naming schema will be executed in the expecting order.
Only one thing is now some versions in old style naming can be skipped, e.g 1,2,3,5 - is valid sequence now.

The order of executing is still from the smallest one to the older.
And another thing is migrations with old name schema will be executed before migrations with timestamps.

[TimMikeladze]

Awesome. Thank you very much. I'll test this and update the example repo, and then merge and publish a new version.

I'll have this done within the next couple of days.

[TimMikeladze]

Thank you @mrkuzzmin for this feature.

It has been released as version 1.7.0