💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "miniscript: explicit cast instead of comparing integers of different signs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27382#discussion_r1154600109)
Maybe best to avoid C-style casts?

```suggestion
return static_cast<uint32_t>(std::count(subs.begin(), subs.end(), true)) >= node.k;
```

⚠️ Doodoobrown23 opened an issue: "Hey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27384)
https://github.com/Doodoobrown23/Kelly/commit/d01158218d6ca094211967f7a229e76fd142d50b/checks?check_suite_id=11903835741

✅ Doodoobrown23 closed an issue: "Hey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27384)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "test: Remove python3.5 workaround":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27378#issuecomment-1492152185)
This PR seems to remove 2 workarounds: https://bugs.python.org/issue3566 and https://bugs.python.org/issue33450. 3566 is marked as resolved (and indeed for Python 3.5) so I think that can be safely removed. 33450 however is still open and also affects Python 3.6. In the description, I can't find in which macOS version this stopped being an issue. Do you have any sources that confirm we can indeed remove this safely?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "miniscript: explicit cast instead of comparing integers of different signs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27382#discussion_r1154626692)
Sure, done. (I don't think it matters in this precise case though.)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Hey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27384)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Feature request: alert PR author in case of CI failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1492182408)
> Can I also get check runs?

Should be available now.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Remove python3.5 workaround":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27378#issuecomment-1492183698)
> however is still open and also affects Python 3.6.

Our minimum required Python is 3.7.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: remove unused param from legacy pubkey interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27274)

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#issuecomment-1492195680)
Rebased.

> could take advantage of that, to remove some of the complexity here; do we definitely need multiple different ways of achieving the same logging toggling?

Exploring this, it doesn't look like there would be much code simplification gained by dropping `none` for `0` only, which would no longer be in symmetry with `all/1` that have been operational for a long time. A couple lines could be saved by removing the `-debugexclude` config option, but that option is practical to have, a
...

👋 jonatack's pull request is ready for review: "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231)

💬 jnewbery commented on pull request "net processing: #26140 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27379#issuecomment-1492199212)
utACK 3fa4c54ac54b2d738e0c43b57b5c232ee02fe3b3

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Selecting two coins will abort with "The amount exceeds your balance."":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/688#issuecomment-1492207012)
Just to clarify: IIUC this was "caused" by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25685 which is only in master. We assuming we fix this before v25.0 there's nothing to backport.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "miniscript: explicit cast instead of comparing integers of different signs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27382)
ACK 9a54d88c8cb0c5d529f388c2ce53008e1ff126dd

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet, gui: bugfix, getAvailableBalance skips selected coins":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26699#issuecomment-1492224218)
Tested that this fixes the coin selection + use available balance GUI issue for me. Haven't reviewed the code yet.

🤔 vostrnad requested changes to a pull request: "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109)

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1131953241)
typo in multi

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1131953155)
misspelled occurring (more instances further below)

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1154694800)
Additionally, at least according to Bitcoin Optech, "multisignature" should not be confused with "multisig": https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/multisignature/

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1154696924)
I guess we can say "for multiple signatures" (but nobody reading this deep inside the codebase will be confused)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Remove python3.5 workaround":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27378#issuecomment-1492272522)
This patch here disables the server timeout, so there shouldn't be any reason for the socket to be closed while `send`ing on macos. However, if that workaround is still needed, it should be guarded by a macos check. So my suggestion would be to assume the workaround is no longer needed, unless someone can prove otherwise?