Send duplicate multi meet packet only for node which supports it

[hpatro]

Fixes: #2341

Would need to backport this to 9.0 and 8.1

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.41%. Comparing base (01a7657) to head (abf06e7).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on unstable.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/cluster_legacy.c	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable    #2840      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     72.46%   72.41%   -0.05%     
============================================
  Files           128      128              
  Lines         70364    70370       +6     
============================================
- Hits          50986    50961      -25     
- Misses        19378    19409      +31     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/cluster_legacy.c	87.37% <80.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️

... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[zuiderkwast]

Bump.

This one is a blocker for us for upgrading to 8.1. During upgrade we have a mixed cluster with 8.0 and 8.1.

[zuiderkwast]

LGTM. Why is this still a draft? Anything missing?

We should include this fix in the next patch release.

[zuiderkwast]

We don't really need this code, because CLUSTER_NODE_MULTI_MEET_SUPPORT == CLUSTER_NODE_LIGHT_HDR_MODULE_SUPPORTED and we already have the same code for CLUSTER_NODE_LIGHT_HDR_MODULE_SUPPORTED. We rely on them being equal for the compatibility logic (e.g. when running a mixed cluster with 8.1.0 and 8.1.5).

[hpatro]

This is dead code but added for folks not to get confused.

[hpatro]

LGTM. Why is this still a draft? Anything missing?

I think the code is good. However, couldn't create a test to reproduce the issue.

[zuiderkwast]

LGTM. Why is this still a draft? Anything missing?

I think the code is good. However, couldn't create a test to reproduce the issue.

OK, then I'd like to merge this as is. I trust it because it modifies only the if added in https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey/pull/1307/files#diff-2515500619600c5a1e7a8d9aaa8761a6071314cd226c3b7ee4d0e054691f0a8eR4976 to resend the MEET.