💬 josibake commented on pull request "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#issuecomment-2966079989)
Updated to add a patch per @hebasto 's [suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#discussion_r2140453692).

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2142312348)
```suggestion
- `NO_IPC`: Don't build Cap’n Proto and libmultiprocess packages
```

I don't think we need to list binaries, it's another list to sync, and we don't do it for other options (i.e bitcoin-wallet) and `NO_WALLET`.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2142312539)
Unrelated CI formatting changes, in a `cmake:` commit?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2966089437)
Unfortunately this introduced a dependency on `/gnu/store/hmd1s3jd77jxnc084pdb4i6i1qrxacx9-go-1.17.13.drv` which fails to build on guix for those (some??) who don't use substitutes (not just aarch64) due to an invalid certificate in its test: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2025-01/msg00288.html

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2966094663)
> Completely misses the fact that this PR lowers the barrier to entry for such garbage infinitely, but again, that doesn't seem to matter to anyone here along with any of the other adverse issues causes by this PR.

gmaxwell made a great point earlier in this thread, which has been repeated in [Antoine's post](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/addressing-community-concerns-and-objections-regarding-my-recent-proposal-to-relax-bitcoin-cores-standardness-limits-on-op-return-outputs/1697) that the entr
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693#discussion_r2142329694)
Thanks for the link! I read the chapter on policy and it was really helpful.

For posterity (and to reason out my own understanding), I don't think the recommendation against `CMAKE_POLICY_VERSION_MINIMUM` (as opposed to using a patch) applies here. I took that paragraph as saying: "here is an easy way to override a projects minimum policy version; only use this as a temporary measure until the project itself updates to a newer cmake minimum."

This advice, IMO, also applies to patching the
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Musig2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-2966114656)
I feel this PR should be in draft until #31244 is merged as all the commits here are from that PR except the last one.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "rpc: Use type-safe exception to pass RPC help"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32660#pullrequestreview-2920584042)
re-ACK fa946520d229ae45b30519bccc9eaa2c47b4a093

```
git range-diff fa0cf42...fa94652
```

Thanks for accepting the naming suggestion.

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2142415579)
```suggestion
- With `PascalCase`, Acronyms must be treated as words. To minimize code churn, legacy identifiers that do not comply with this rule will remain unchanged and will only be renamed when the surrounding code is modified. Hence:
```
NIT: Do not tell what NOT to do but explain what to do. This suggestion explains (imho) what the intention is, treating acronyms as words, and therefor the PascalCase can easily be applied.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#issuecomment-2966248213)
-0, I don't see why this can't be left to the author, given how rare it is.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "blocks: force hash validations on disk read":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32638#discussion_r2142452856)
Done, thanks

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: Remove ISMINE_WATCHONLY and watchonly from RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32618#discussion_r2142472335)
Does this argument `include_watchonly` not require the `DEPRECATED` flag now in the RPCResult description?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2966291005)
Looks like this is getting pulled in by `python-scikit-build-core` -> `"/gnu/store/8a28mn0n9bd0nwq5vd6d1lfhr1j27cbk-rust-ring-0.17.8.tar.gz.drv"` -> `"/gnu/store/wbfmclxgnmlqbin55ipb0x05i1yapiy5-go-1.21.13.drv"` -> `"/gnu/store/wb36d09msn72aamvj8hj4y55551rqilz-go-1.17.13.drv"` -> `"/gnu/store/mjvb787fwd5bb6m2z02hhy30n5jzd9gw-go-1.4-bootstrap-20171003.drv"`

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "blocks: force hash validations on disk read":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32638#discussion_r2142496127)
I'm not sure I fully understand the comment here. Are you saying that it's obvious that this is always true? if so, isn't that kinda' the role of an assert though :)?

If you think it's ridiculously trivial (though you had to look inside the methods to understand the relation, this assertion was meant to avoid doing that, since I'm replacing one with the other in the code, this should help reviewers understand why that's safe).

So here it's meant to document why subsequent code now relies o
...

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "test: enabling wallet migration functional test on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32219#discussion_r2142521186)
It was only a problem on Windows. Made a note of that.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "test: enabling wallet migration functional test on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32219#discussion_r2142522767)
Cleaner, taken, thanks!

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "test: enabling wallet migration functional test on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32219#discussion_r2142525731)
I was assuming UTF-8 support as yeah they always run with UTF-8 on but in theory this could be run alone without so I just changed the symbol. Thanks.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "test: enabling wallet migration functional test on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32219#discussion_r2142528061)
Good spot, shame it's more verbose but it's all easy code to understand so taken. Thanks for not only noticing but also giving an alternative.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "test: enabling wallet migration functional test on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32219#discussion_r2142528523)
Done.

💬 l0rinc commented on issue "Networking tests fail on emulated big-endian systems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31812#issuecomment-2966406017)
I reran to verify (only on Mac, my Hetzner boxes are busy):
```bash
docker run --platform linux/s390x -it ubuntu:latest /bin/bash
```
and inside I did something like:
```bash
export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && apt update && apt install -y git build-essential cmake ccache pkg-config libevent-dev libboost-dev libzmq3-dev systemtap-sdt-dev qtbase5-dev qttools5-dev qttools5-dev-tools libqrencode-dev libsqlite3-dev python3 \
cd /mnt && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2142554412)
It seems unavoidable to change ci in the same commit.

Previous iterations were changing `BUILD_CONFIG`, hence the formatting change. But I'll just drop them now.