💬 stratospher commented on pull request "validation: set BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD correctly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31835#discussion_r2020368826)
done.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#issuecomment-2765000837)
Rebased 4e265debdc0319bbfcea915d9026b33810b810f8 -> 625bd576215e82d430998bfa68501db7ba03c3b2 ([`pr/subtree.25`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree.25) -> [`pr/subtree.26`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree.26), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/subtree.25-rebase..pr/subtree.26)) due to conflict with #31992

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "descriptors: Multipath/PR 22838 follow-ups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32134#pullrequestreview-2728250898)
crACK 56f271e9b9c82f40054d63d4b638584bd2faef00

Overall, I believe this change leaves the code in a more readable state.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptors: Multipath/PR 22838 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32134#discussion_r2020415005)
I'd have used `multipath_substitutes` at the cost of being a bit more verbose but this is also fine.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptors: Multipath/PR 22838 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32134#discussion_r2020415960)
Using `substitutes` seems reasonable to me as the calculated derivation path indices are indeed substituting the multipath specifier `*`.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptors: Multipath/PR 22838 follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32134#discussion_r2020423324)
+1 for using `placeholder`, makes it easier to follow.

📝 whitslack opened a pull request: "cmake: support `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/861)
This PR adds support in `CMakeLists.txt` for `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6` to allow building against system-installed Qt6 libraries in distributions that are dropping support for Qt5 (such as [Gentoo](https://bugs.gentoo.org/948836)).

I specify Qt 6.2.4 as a minimum requirement based on the work in bitcoin/bitcoin#24798, but I do not know whether Bitcoin Core currently builds against such an old version of Qt6. I have successfully built v29.0rc2 against Qt 6.8.3.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "cmake: support `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/861)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: support `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/861#issuecomment-2765196621)
Thanks, however the changes to switch to Qt6 are being done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: support `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/861#issuecomment-2765197200)
(There are no plans to support both qt 5 & 6 at the same time.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#issuecomment-2765213135)
> Could probably be cherry-picked into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973, so that there is only a single pull with doc/refactor fixups of the same file?

Probably this was meant the other way around: cherry-pick this change into that PR, to not have to open a new one. But this works too.

💬 whitslack commented on pull request "cmake: support `-DBUILD_GUI=qt6`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/861#issuecomment-2765215050)
Oh balls. When I searched the issue tracker for Qt6 progress, I had `is:issue` in my query, so I didn't find the new PR. :man_facepalming:

Thanks for the pointer.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2020460428)
nit: Please use the same comment syntax as the other comments

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2020461693)
Thank you, fixed.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#issuecomment-2765256363)
Are you still working on this?

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "wallet: removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2765272443)
Hi @maflcko could you please ACK if your okay with response.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2020484368)
It's strange that the only torproject.org link for the C Tor manual is a 2019 backup of the site, but haven't found anything better either.
The only up-to-date canonical source is the manual page, which isn't particularly readable on the web https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/blob/main/doc/man/tor.1.txt
(nothing to do here really, just noting)

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#pullrequestreview-2728361165)
Code review ACK f31ce35966bb84608938b0ba2272b415bcd42618

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2020488844)
Yes the web url link is old, but the `IsolateSOCKSAuth` explaination content is same with https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/blob/main/doc/man/tor.1.txt

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2020497489)
Oh yes the site is correct, i'm just a bit worried about it going offline at some point, so was trying to find a more up-to-date official link. But it doesn't exist.

💬 Bue-von-hon commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#issuecomment-2765314756)
> Are you still working on this?

sure!