💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275245)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275555)
complete sentence, but not grammatically correct or useful, removed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275611)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275679)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275786)
it's a package rbf test, I think name is fine

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275855)
Hmm, yeah I don't think this test is meaningful. Removed.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275921)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275972)
forgot to remove, done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276032)
fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276105)
conceptually the test is cleaner if each parent is different, so I updated the parent to be slightly different, and asserted the parents are all have different txids

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276165)
Deleting this comment as I don't think it's helpful

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276237)
added updated comment

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276289)
would need to do a bit more work to make sure it actually would be attempting a package rbf. I think we can rely on our conflict topology check tests to ensure this, at least for default mempool chains?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276334)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276412)
added an extra phrase, hope that helps?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2079739934)
all feedback should be addressed now

💬 vasild commented on issue "Require thread_local":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29952#issuecomment-2079776241)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7973a670915632b75a6aa16f24f98b936865c48f/configure.ac#L1054-L1057

The file https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/master/lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_impl.c has not been changed since 2017.

Running the unit tests on FreeBSD with thread_local enabled (had to edit `configure.ac`) prints a bunch of those:
```
__cxa_thread_call_dtors: dtr 0x375164b2d70 from unloaded dso, skipping
```
which is at least annoying and scary.

We only use `thr
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: improve performance of CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28339#discussion_r1581333124)
That was not on purpose, I just missed the second half of you suggestion. Changed it now, slightly stricter checks can only be helpful.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: improve performance of CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28339#discussion_r1581333328)
done as suggested.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: improve performance of CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28339#issuecomment-2079810727)
[3c3895c ](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3c3895ccfa108e10f4a0b1a78f64ffedade1fd11)to [5bc2077](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5bc2077e8f592442b089affdf0b5795fbc053bb8):
Addressed review feedback

💬 iw4p commented on pull request "test: switch from curl to requests for HTTP requests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29970#issuecomment-2079822326)
@laanwj I investigated and found that you modified `import requests` here [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23162). Is there any shell script that I can provide `pip install requests` to pass the `previous release, depends DEBUG`?