💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298095969)
> However, the current logic seems useful for fork repos, no?

I mean, topic branches in fork repos.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#issuecomment-1683465163)
I guess as an alternative, the ghcr can be used to store a ccache? This would require a bit more code on our side, and maybe a few more permissions to be enabled? Though, if the write-permissions are limited to the `master` branch, maybe that is fine?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#issuecomment-1683467914)
I guess neither solution is perfect, but longer term it would still be fun to explore if something can be achieved via ghcr (or some other registry), see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265/files#r1295647557

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#issuecomment-1683484025)
> I guess as an alternative, the ghcr can be used to store a ccache? This would require a bit more code on our side, and maybe a few more permissions to be enabled?

For now, only two jobs, namely native macOS and Windows, are planned to run on GitHub Actions. It should work fine at this scale, no?

> Though, if the write-permissions are limited to the `master` branch, maybe that is fine?

I'm not sure about how to make "the write-permissions are limited to the `master` branch". I'll do me
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "rpc: remove one more quote from non-string oneline description"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28289#pullrequestreview-1584012832)
ACK 239431444216850b63ecf01c3b5c5d6d24230d08

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Add Arg() default helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28230#discussion_r1298184373)
heh, but I don't like templates either. My preference would be to use `if constexpr (is_pointer||is_optional) { foo } else { bar }` or C++20 concepts. See also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28230#discussion_r1293478970


However, I've taken your idea to remove ArgRef. Thanks!

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#issuecomment-1683590844)
> the ghcr can be used to store a ccache?

Anyway, it won't work with non-Linux runners out-of-the-box.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "rpc: remove one more quote from non-string oneline description"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28289)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298220709)
> I mean, topic branches in contributors' fork repos.

The cache key isn't included the branch name, so I don't think this will work.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298222825)
Can someone elaborate on why branches in forks of this repository are something we need to consider when deciding on our caching stratergy for this repository? Do the forks share our cache (resources)? Can anyone with a fork clobber our cache?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298223512)
On a contributor's topic branch in his personal repo, the workflow will be triggered by a `push` event. So the updated push will reuse the cache.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298225748)
> Can anyone with a fork clobber our cache?

No.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298227841)
> Can someone elaborate on why branches in forks of this repository are something we need to consider when deciding on our caching stratergy for this repository?

I use CI in my personal repo before pushing my branch into the pull request. And I want to use CI with some efficiency.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298227846)


> On a contributor's topic branch in their personal repo, the workflow will be triggered by a `push` event. So the updated push will reuse the cache.

No? I think it will use the latest cache, which may be from a different branch, because the cache key isn't included the branch name, so I don't think this will work.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Disable cache save for pull requests in GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28292#discussion_r1298233032)
> > On a contributor's topic branch in their personal repo, the workflow will be triggered by a `push` event. So the updated push will reuse the cache.
>
> No? I think it will use the latest cache, which may be from a different branch, because the cache key isn't included the branch name, so I don't think this will work.

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#example-using-multiple-restore-keys: a feature branch is considered before a
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: switch from `guix environment` to `guix shell`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26077#issuecomment-1683642107)
> lgtm, but you'll have to document the minimum guix version to be 1.4, no?

Yea we'll have to update docs in some capacity. Going to draft for now, until we've bumped the time-machine (27897), and then come back to this.

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "guix: switch from `guix environment` to `guix shell`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26077)
See https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Invoking-guix-environment.html.

> Deprecation warning: The guix environment command is deprecated
in favor of guix shell, which performs similar functions but is more convenient to use. See Invoking guix shell.

> Being deprecated, guix environment is slated for eventual removal,
but the Guix project is committed to keeping it until May 1st, 2023. Please get in touch with us at guix-devel@gnu.org if you would like to discuss it.

See al
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: BIP 326 sequence based anti-fee-snipe for taproot inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24128#issuecomment-1683706701)
rebased (trivial)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove Taproot activation height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26201#discussion_r1298294545)
@luke-jr like this?

> This will need `aRules` in `rpc/mining.cpp` updated

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "test: refactor: support sending funds with outpoint result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264#discussion_r1298301189)
Review ACK 7154542

The proposed refactor is a commendable improvement, streamlining test cases by leveraging the ```create_outpoints(...)``` function to consolidate calls to ```nodes.sendtoaddress()``` and ```find_vout_for_address()``` into a single invocation.

Suggestion: It might be beneficial to add documentation clarifying that the ```outputs``` argument should be an array of dictionaries following the format ```{address: amount_to_send}```. This would enhance usability for future user
...