RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe

[Nathan Sidwell]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> Comments?  Questions?  Otherwise, I will plan to commit this in a week.
> I haven't seen any objections to the latest version of the proposal,
> although I'm somewhat suspicious that I've just talked everyone else
> into the ground.

Can you clarify something for me?  If a stub recieves a 'qSupported:foo' packet, 
should it still respond with any default information it might have -- such as 
the PacketSize response?  Or should such default responses only be sent for an 
unadorned qSupported packet?

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::         CodeSourcery
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk