💬 maflcko commented on pull request "kernel: Remove key module from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29252#issuecomment-1893335214)
> The gui tests currently keep multiple `NodeContext` objects in memory, so relax the `secp256k1_context_sign` check in `ECC_Start` to instead return early if it has already been initialized.

An alternative would be to call `ECC_Stop` in the gui tests instead of modifying key code?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: Add -binary option to clang-format-diff":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29251#issuecomment-1893338875)
I think you can just pull the latest version?

💬 BossMannKali commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#issuecomment-1893343037)
BO$$ KAL!

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "Fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246#issuecomment-1893347901)
Thank you for your interest in contributing. Please see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-philosophy

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "contrib: Add -binary option to clang-format-diff":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29251#issuecomment-1893355836)
There were a bunch of changes made to this file to make it "Bitcoin Core" style. Re-applying all of them seems a bit burdensome. Would it be ok to just overwrite these?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: Add -binary option to clang-format-diff":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29251#issuecomment-1893357715)
Sure. Seems fine to drop them. (If there are any important, you can re-cherry-pick them again on top)?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[25.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28768#discussion_r1453154604)
Dropped.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[25.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28768#issuecomment-1893369155)
> Also, PR description needs to be updated to remove the reference to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28919.

Updated.

> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29200 would be relevant.

There'll be another 25.x backports PR, so it could be included there.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "log mempool loading progress":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#issuecomment-1893375082)
Leaving gui notifications (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#discussion_r1452031664) and dumping logs (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#pullrequestreview-1817064507) up for grabs

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: remove `--enable-lto`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29185)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add NM output to gen_id":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29249#discussion_r1453173548)
Yep, bad copy-paste.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "log mempool loading progress":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#issuecomment-1893393129)
26.x backport in #29209

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "[25.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28768#pullrequestreview-1822937595)
ACK 53bbda51141e48730b95913c6ae8e1ea50578fbb

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove all-lint.py script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29228#issuecomment-1893412173)
> looks like we can replace the [comment to run all the lint commands](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/README.md)

Thanks, added a commit to move the documentation to one place.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#issuecomment-1893416499)
CI failure can be ignored

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Faster std::byte (pre)vector (un)serialize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29114#issuecomment-1893418212)
CI failure can be ignored

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "rpc: actually deprecate `rpcuser` & `rpcpass`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29240#issuecomment-1893453193)
Surprisingly I found very few instances of `rpcuser` and `rpcpassword` remaining in the docs. I updated their usage, and the example init scripts, in [this branch](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...willcl-ark:bitcoin:deprecate-rpcuser) to see the scope of changes that would be required on the doc side.

I think if we want to fully deprecate these options, the changes in that branch along with #28167 as mentioned above, should come first.

My opinion is that it would be best
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: update -loglevel help to add `info` to the always logged levels"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29230)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "[25.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28768)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "RFC: Deprecate libconsensus":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29189#issuecomment-1893591435)
Concept ACK on removing the library.

This PR documents the library as deprecated, removes its tests but leaves the library. So, for some time there will be a library that will be untested. What is the merit of doing that? Isn't it better to document it as deprecated now and later remove the library and its tests at the same time?