💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1808875791)
sure done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1808875865)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#issuecomment-2426763408)
@glozow we may want to consider relaxing `package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents` to allow people to submit just the cpfp alone? Should be done in a separate PR regardless.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "validation: Improve input script check error reporting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31097)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "[refactor] Cleanup BlockAssembler mempool usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28843#issuecomment-2426769421)
Updated 60a0f2ac88c57fdf4482dade2ce409ef2da65998 -> 192dac1d3370edd579db235d69c034726f37c8da ([blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_2) -> [blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_2..blockAssemblerRemoveMempool_3))

* Added @stickies-v's [patch](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: Enable CET for `glibc` package"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31121)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Add Signet and testnet4 launch shortcuts for Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26334)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#discussion_r1808887976)
lots of ways things can go wrong, unsure what would be good to report personally

🤔 danielabrozzoni reviewed a pull request: "validation: Improve input script check error reporting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31097#pullrequestreview-2382244315)
post merge tACK 86e2a6b749c7fecbd086b361806ac9f6e9426d79

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Improve parallel script validation error debug logging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31112#issuecomment-2426831357)
Rebased after the merge of #31097.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "coins: Add move operations to Coin and CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30643#discussion_r1808928993)
Is the reason that all of these default constructors can be declared noexcept that all of `Coin`'s members' respective default constructors that get invoked are noexcept?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#discussion_r1808939633)
good point, could be used elsewhere too in a follow-up e.g., `testmempoolaccept`, `submitpackage`, etc. done.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#discussion_r1808939884)
changed thanks

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#discussion_r1808940077)
fixed

💬 sipa commented on pull request "coins: Add move operations to Coin and CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30643#discussion_r1808941268)
According to https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/noexcept_spec:

> [default constructors](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_constructor), [copy constructors](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_constructor), [move constructors](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/move_constructor) that are implicitly-declared or defaulted on their first declaration unless
>
> * a constructor for a base or member that the implicit definition of the constructor woul
...

🤔 danielabrozzoni reviewed a pull request: "[refactor] Cleanup BlockAssembler mempool usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28843#pullrequestreview-2382356336)
re-ACK 192dac1

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "[refactor] Cleanup BlockAssembler mempool usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28843#pullrequestreview-2382365246)
ACK 192dac1d3370edd579db235d69c034726f37c8da

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: net: follow-ups for #30062":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183#issuecomment-2426954572)
re-ACK a16917fb5981d1465ffd4c036586f8729e683b73

Thanks for addressing it!

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add multiprocess binaries to release build":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2426960596)
@fanquake thanks, I'll look into that along with a rebase - might be after TABConf.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Split CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30988#issuecomment-2426964142)
cc @theuni any takes?

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "test: Fuzz the human-readable part of bech32 as well"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30623#pullrequestreview-2382423311)
Code review ACK 9b7023d31a3ec95f66b45f0ecb47e79762d74854. The separation into two targets and the new `GenerateRandomHRP` seem fine to me.

Decode [coverage](https://marcofleon.github.io/coverage/bech32decode/)
Roundtrip [coverage](https://marcofleon.github.io/coverage/bech32roundtrip/)