From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Nov 21 15:10:42 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22870
          for stable-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:10:42 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable)
Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA22864
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:10:39 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com)
Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
	by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA00376;
	Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:10:24 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com)
Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA16353; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:10:21 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:10:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199711212310.QAA16353@mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Cc: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>,
        Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Version Resolution?
In-Reply-To: <199711212307.PAA15838@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
References: <rkw@dataplex.net>
	<199711212307.PAA15838@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> } >And if you don't do this, how do you get the right token if you export
> } >a version from CVS using -r <branch_tag>:<date> to get something other
> } >than the head of a branch?
> } 
> } You don't. The purpose of this hack is to distinguish between two
> } different source trees which are extracted using exactly the same
> } (head of a branch) tag, but at different times.
> } 
> } We should also be using a CVS/RCS macro to tell us what tag we used for
> } the extraction. This information should also get included in the system
> } identification.
> 
> Couldn't this solve the original problem as well?  If you are extracting
> at the head of a branch, we've already got the branch tag info, so we
> just need to set the date macro to the time of the extraction.

What about the folks that don't use CVS to get the bits?  The CVS macro
doesn't exist for them. ;(


Nate