bug#51342: 29.0.50; remove non-CAPs from rcirc capability list

[Philip Kaludercic]

"J.P." <jp@neverwas.me> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>>> Standard replies are quite mysterious. From what I can gather:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I understand the issue, but am still hesitant. If this is vague, then
>> it seems better to err on the side of safety
>
> What's mysterious and vague isn't the existence of a capability called
> standard-replies. No such capability currently exists. As mentioned in
> my last reply (not sure if you saw that one), the closest thing is
> inspircd.org/standard-replies. Hope that makes sense.
>
>> Or are there any real downsides to being more explicit?
>
> No downsides at present because you request one cap per line. And you
> have no interdependent caps as yet. So long as both remain true, there's
> nothing to worry about. And rcirc doesn't make you accrue flood debt,
> so early messages (even spurious ones) don't cost extra.

Ok, then I think we should leave it the way it is for now.

> In ERC's case, we *do* have to worry because we implement 302 and have
> multiple dependencies. If any one gets NAK'd, there goes the ball game.
> There's also some undefined behavior [1] that can turn connection
> registration into a bit of a limbo without additional planning (should
> you ever decide to go that route). Thanks.

I think you should report this as a separate bug report.

> [1] 
> https://github.com/ircv3/ircv3-specifications/pull/400#issuecomment-579063998
>

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic