💬 fanquake commented on pull request "I2P network optimizations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26837#issuecomment-1446389184)
Added to #26878 for backporting to 24.x.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: finish addressbook encapsulation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1446395076)
Updated per feedback. Now we no longer access the wallet's addressbook member externally.

Plus, improvements to the address book migration process:
1) Fixed a bug where we don't copy the "send" records to all the wallets.
2) Have re-written the process with no code duplication.
3) Batched db writes so the disk dump is done all at once.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: be able to specify a wallet name and passphrase to migratewallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26595#issuecomment-1446408587)
Added to #26878 for backporting to 24.x.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "contrib: Improve verify-commits.py to work with maintainers leaving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27058#issuecomment-1446412437)
Would it be unreasonable for users to add a ppa and install that way? Also temporary?

💬 sipa commented on pull request "p2p: Batch send NOTFOUND messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26486#issuecomment-1446415216)
I have no further interest in pursuit this, going to close it and mark as up for grabs.

✅ sipa closed a pull request: "p2p: Batch send NOTFOUND messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26486)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Handle invalid hex encoding in ParseHex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25227)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discussion_r1118825254)
nit:
```cpp
const bool ret{m_chainman.m_blockman.ReadBlockFromDisk(block, pindex, m_chainparams.GetConsensus())};
```

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "Update translations for 25.0 string freeze"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27169)
This PR follows our [Release Process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md).

Required to open Transifex translations for 25.0 on 2023-03-01 as it's [planned](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549).

**NOTE.** Translations for the following languages for the latest 24.x Transifex resource have been effectively cancelled/damaged/vandalized:
- German (de) by [nesbonk83](https://www.transifex.com/user/profile/nesbonk83/) on 2023-01-27
- Dutch (nl) by
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Update translations for 25.0 string freeze":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27169#issuecomment-1446432625)
cc @luke-jr @jarolrod @wtogami

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1446439957)
> ## 2023-03-01 construction
>
> - Open Transifex translations for 25.0

See #27169.

---

@GregTonoski
> What is the "23.0" in the sentence: "Finalize and close translations for 23.0"? Isn't it a typo, perhaps?

That's correct. See https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/content/.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "`libbitcoinkernel`: Building `mingw-w64` dll's broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25008)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: Cross-compiling libbitcoinconsensus for Windows fails with DEBUG=1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19772)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Fix various libbitcoinkernel DLL build problems"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27146)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084#discussion_r1118853535)
> Isn't this already the default?

Yep looks like it.

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084)
Combined https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27077 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27083 for the sake of more representative testing.

The [second](https://cirrus-ci.com/build/5852404411793408) run looks promising:
- ["MSan"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4583485717872640) task -- 98.74 %
- ["ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5146435671293952) task -- 100.0 %
- ["multiprocess"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4864960694583296) task -- 99.35 %
- ["macOS 13 n
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Deduplicate bitcoind and bitcoin-qt init code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150#discussion_r1118857439)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150/checks?check_run_id=11596638131
```bash
src/test/translation_tests.cpp: Expected 0 argument(s) after format string but found 1 argument(s): strprintf(format, arg)
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[24.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26878#issuecomment-1446478907)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26878/commits/784a754aa47ce10c6fd99c09cdfc76ee9bc91652

trivial backports as far as I can see

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Fix various libbitcoinkernel DLL build problems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27146#issuecomment-1446482380)
> This also fixes #19772. (updated PR description).

Confirming that this PR indeed fixes #19772.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1118885979)
In 4db9dc8ac3baa9751702ca575965661e63384692:

Looks like you're introducing these benchmarks, with `BCLog::NET`, only to change them in a later commit (dfb40748911b9553a6e10c8376b032dac36bf938) to `BCLog::VALIDATION`? It's not obvious to me why the category needs changing, but this can probably be re-ordered so we aren't changing the same (newly introduced) lines of code, multiple times in the same PR.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#issuecomment-1446525945)
Rebased on master and prepended an extra commit with a unit test for BlockManager. The test passes on master and the branch without modification, hopefully illustrating that at least some behaviors are not affected.

It's hard to test precisely for the branch's change in a unit test because file-flushing is not something we can really predict or test for (sometimes it happens as soon as we `fwrite()`).

The actual error in issue #2039 comes from an attempt to OPEN a file with `rw` when the
...