💬 michaelfolkson commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2706189931)
> We are going to activate CTV I don't think that's a question. The question is will core merge it in before or after lock-in?

If you don't care about the Bitcoin Core review process, community consensus and causing chain splits probably better you close this PR and attempt to cause chaos in a different repo.

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "cmake: `makenisis` isn't checked-for before use"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32018)
Autotools would warn that we wouldn't be able to build the installer if it was missing. Currently, we don't check if it's available at all, and just fail when we first try to use it. This differs from the macOS deploy target, where we do check that `zip` is avilable, and fail to configure if it isn't.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: set `CMAKE_*_COMPILER_TARGET` in toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849#issuecomment-2706241283)
> For example:

I'm not entirely convinced, given this isn't generic. If duplicate flags is an issue, then we should be doing the same for duplication that already exists (in non-verbose builds), not just for this specific case.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qt: 29.0 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32004#issuecomment-2706246199)
> I would be useful if the PR describes any major intended changes.
>
> It adds several new languages: ast_ES, ay, or, ps, sa, sm, tn, ve, xh, yi
>
> It almost completely drops Dutch, Czech, Danish and perhaps others (Github can barely load the diff).

As a PR author, I took responsibility for committing changes that are generated by the [`bitcoin-maintainer-tools/update-translations.py`](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/blob/main/update-translations.py) script, w
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "qt: 29.0 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32004#discussion_r1984932418)
This is pulling back in the same spam from #30897.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: set `CMAKE_*_COMPILER_TARGET` in toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849#issuecomment-2706263234)
> > For example:
>
> I'm not entirely convinced, given this isn't generic. If duplicate flags is an issue, then we should be doing the same for duplication that already exists (in non-verbose builds), not just for this specific case.

I don't think that duplicate flags can break the build. It is rather a readability issue and a potential source of confusion.

What are other flags are duplicated now?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: set `CMAKE_*_COMPILER_TARGET` in toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849#issuecomment-2706271399)
> What are other flags are duplicated now?

Any depends build currently has duplicated `-O` flags, i.e: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5474870093414400?logs=ci#L852.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qt: 29.0 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32004#discussion_r1984954317)
Removed the spam on Transifex and made a fresh fetching.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "cmake: (release) version handling is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31898#issuecomment-2706296617)
I've remove the milestone, but I think there's plenty we could do here. I've also removed (release) as that seemed to be distracting from the actual bugs. Building from a tag should work regarded of being a "release", and there are codepaths for this in the current code.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1984958285)
> Those are for additional releases

Hmmm, if I get the list of every version via `git fetch upstream --prune --prune-tags --force && git tag --sort=creatordate | sed -n 's#^v##p'`, I'm getting *319 tags*, many of which (including the latest ones) aren't currently matched by `PATTERN_AGENT`, see https://www.online-python.com/3iU2QMKu97

Can we generalize the agent pattern to something like this instead?
```python
PATTERN_AGENT = re.compile(r"^/Satoshi:(\d+(\.\d+){0,3}[-\w]*)$")
```

💬 hebasto commented on issue "cmake: (release) version handling is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31898#issuecomment-2706310874)
It seems that the first thing to decide is the source of the version information:
- the `CLIENT_VERSION_*` variables set by the build system, or
- a GitHub tag

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "doc: add note to Windows build about stripping bins"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32002#pullrequestreview-2667104012)
ACK 416aeeaae9abb322389ec55bd9b281290cb390c7.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Update minisketch subtree to d1e6bb8bbf8ef104b9dd002cab14a71b91061177"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32000#pullrequestreview-2667130467)
ACK 4fde88bc469dc1c827591f764bd635038ccaf852, I've updated the subtree locally and got zero diff with this PR.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Update minisketch subtree to d1e6bb8bbf8ef104b9dd002cab14a71b91061177"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32000)

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#pullrequestreview-2667196940)
Code Review ACK 18e83534ace7aa2d26bc7dfa521b1d591b66edfa

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "qt: 29.0 translations update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32004#pullrequestreview-2667220755)
re-ACK 86a28b6a3368acd2e6183fcfc9bbb13ee306c9fb

(comparing `master` sync with this PR shows a minor diff on `bitcoin_gl_ES.ts` - Galician Spanish - done today while this PR was created 2 days ago)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#issuecomment-2706446575)
`2747f135be...e35a382388`: fix the CI failure, thanks!

💬 dergoegge commented on issue "test: `p2p_message_capture.py` fails with GCC 14 & undefined sanitizer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32016#issuecomment-2706454955)
Maybe related: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28761

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#discussion_r1985062506)
The idea is that it does not matter which thread will destroy the `CNode` objects.

> there are no guarantees (afaict) that `disconnected_nodes` will actually be the last owner.

That is right, but there is no need for such a guarantee. `disconnected_nodes` is to guarantee that the objects will not be destroyed while holding `m_nodes_mutex`.

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "Docs: fix typos in documentation files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32011#pullrequestreview-2667264633)
crACK 8ff8af1

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "ci: Do not try to install for fuzz builds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32014#pullrequestreview-2667265203)
utACK a3c3f37e71efc1ad13fcad49b1ac651e5843b26b

This fixes the build issue seen earlier on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/pull/219