💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: run test-each-commit on merge to master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32103#issuecomment-2741873830)
> > I think what you want is to checkout each old commit and then merge it (inside the CI task) with master. Not sure how to achieve it otherwise. Maybe you can share your steps to reproduce with `git`?
>
> To clarify, my suggestion would be to modify the `git rebase --exec 'run_test' base` into `git rebase --exec 'git log -1 && git merge --no-commit master && echo run_test && git merge --abort' base`. However, I haven't tested this.

Would it not in that case be simpler to checkout the PR
...

💬 jimhashhq commented on issue "Add a `indexesdir` option to hold the indexes directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32099#issuecomment-2741897166)
Do you have `txindex` enabled or disabled?

When `-txindex` is _disabled_, the (internal/primary SSD) index storage requirements were only 2% of total blockchain size I thought.. Running instead _with_ `-txindex` would indeed bump internal/primary storage up to around 10-12%, which may be what you're seeing..

Don't know if it would help your situation, but have you tried running w/o `-txindex`?

⚠️ Davidoff2778 opened an issue: "Bitcoin Core Config Generator"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32106)
https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-core-config-generator/#config=eyJjaGFpbiI6eyJ0ZXN0bmV0IjoxLCJ0ZXN0bmV0NCI6MSwicmVndGVzdCI6MSwic2lnbmV0IjoxfSwiY29yZSI6eyJibG9ja3Nvbmx5IjoxLCJjb2luc3RhdHNpbmRleCI6MSwiZGFlbW9uIjoxLCJkYWVtb253YWl0IjoxLCJhbGxvd2lnbm9yZWRjb25mIjoxLCJwZXJzaXN0bWVtcG9vbHYxIjoxLCJ0eGluZGV4IjoxfSwid2FsbGV0Ijp7ImFkZHJlc3N0eXBlIjoibGVnYWN5IiwiZGlzYWJsZXdhbGxldCI6MSwidW5zYWZlc3FsaXRlc3luYyI6MSwid2FsbGV0Y3Jvc3NjaGFpbiI6MX19

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Bitcoin Core Config Generator"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32106)

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Bitcoin Core Config Generator":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32106#issuecomment-2741933825)
Whatever your issue is I think you need to open it in this repo: https://github.com/jlopp/bitcoin-core-config-generator/

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: Use immediate task runner to increase fuzz stability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31841)

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2741951050)
I don't think you *can* prune with txindex! I added a 1 TB volume -- this was the mainnet server for the BOSS2025 program, specifically the RPC scavenger hunt challenge.

There were several crashes, I can't remember the height they started at but it was long before 800000.

The conf file just had `txindex=1` but I must have turned on `debug=1` on the command line when the crashes started

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Enforces Txid and Wtxid types in RelayTransaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32104#issuecomment-2742089261)
cc @marcofleon & #31001.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "refactor: Enforces Txid and Wtxid types in RelayTransaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32104#issuecomment-2742096552)
Oh, I didn't realize Marco was already working on this. I saw this when updating the Erlay PR and thought it may be good to standalone fix. I'm happy to close it if you're planning to get it addressed @marcofleon

⚠️ bonczis opened an issue: "A"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32107)
### Motivation

A

### Possible solution

_No response_

### Useful Skills

* Compiling Bitcoin Core from source
* Running the C++ unit tests and the Python functional tests
* ...


### Guidance for new contributors

Want to work on this issue?

For guidance on contributing, please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before opening your pull request.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "A"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32107)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "A"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32107)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "fuzz: Use immediate task runner to increase fuzz stability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31841#issuecomment-2742339375)
Post-merge ACK

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent issue in p2p_orphan_handling.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31700)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fix intermittent issue in p2p_orphan_handling.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32092)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: add guidance for RPC to developer notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30142)

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2742398706)
> I had an idea I wanted to suggest here. What if instead of adding C bindings to the bitcoin/bitcoin git repository we took inspiration from @darosior's thoughts about [project scope](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/antoine-poinsot-on-bitcoin-cores-priorities/1470) and developed the C, rust, and python bindings in a separate bitcoin-core/bindings repository, or even separate bitcoin-core/bindings-{c,rust,python} repositories?

I think this is an interesting idea, and may be worth exploring indep
...

💬 User087 commented on issue "Add a `indexesdir` option to hold the indexes directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32099#issuecomment-2742402726)
> Do you have `txindex` enabled or disabled?

Enabled - the context of the question is that I think this would be useful for anyone running with `txindex` enabled; I'm not assuming `indexesdir` would be necessary if it's kept disabled (just as someone with a sufficiently pruned blockchain doesn't need to worry about `blocksdir` either).

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Write access to Testing Guide for 29.0 RC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32102)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Write access to Testing Guide for 29.0 RC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32102#issuecomment-2742452052)
Added.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2742479648)
> Maybe I need to think about it more, but I don't see how a similar process could play out between the C++ API and the C bindings, or how there could be other benefits to the C++ code from just maintaining the C bindings. I could see there being benefits from developing the bindings, but would expect those to be the same regardless of repository layout.

I think I was conflating the introduction of some consolidating code here, like a separate context, methods that map to multiple calls to ou
...