From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Nov 21 17:08:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00269
          for stable-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:37 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable)
Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00262
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:32 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from gdonl@tsc.tdk.com)
Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191])
          by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id RAA07601; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194])
	by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27784;
	Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gdonl@localhost)
	by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA16164;
	Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Message-Id: <199711220108.RAA16164@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:08:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
       "Re: Version Resolution?" (Nov 21,  6:04pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95)
To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Subject: Re: Version Resolution?
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>,
        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Nov 21,  6:04pm, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
} Subject: Re: Version Resolution?
} >> } 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.
} 
} No! The time of cvs extraction is not what matters at all.

What about the most recent timestamp in the history file for that branch?
If you use "-r <branch_tag>:<date>", the most recent timestamp in the
history file that is older than "<date>" should be used.

This assumes that folks who use cloned copies of the CVS tree possess copies
of the history file from the master CVS tree.