💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: add cpu_load to getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31672#issuecomment-2812395790)
`ee16345af3...19c8336d97`: address suggestions

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288#discussion_r2048646279)
> If it only takes a couple of extra seconds,

I haven't measured, for all users, developers and CIs. The point of this change is to immediately start catching regressions in at least one CI.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: add cpu_load to getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31672#discussion_r2048646883)
Reduced the text and removed the link to the doc since it is already a few lines earlier.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: add cpu_load to getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31672#discussion_r2048648039)
Removed and added a note to the PR description about the alternatives.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2812407333)
Rebased, now that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31551 was merged - will redo the IBD benchmarks (since we have bigger obfuscatable chunks now) to see if any of the commit messages or descriptions need changing.
The PR is otherwise ready for review again!

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288#pullrequestreview-2775259752)
ACK 27f11217ca63e0f8f78f14db139150052dcd9962.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288#discussion_r2048658794)
> The point of this change is to immediately start catching regressions in at least one CI.

Ok. Resolved.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] flush UTXOs in bigger batches based on dbcache size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#discussion_r2048662881)
Thanks, ended up with:
```C++
argsman.AddArg("-dbbatchsize", strprintf("Maximum database write batch size in bytes (default: calculated from the provided `-dbcache` value or %u if none are provided)", node::GetDbBatchSize(DEFAULT_DB_CACHE)), ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY | ArgsManager::DEBUG_ONLY, OptionsCategory::OPTIONS);
```
which prints:
```bash
./build/bin/bitcoind -dbcache=1000 -help-debug | grep -A2 dbbatchsize
-dbbatchsize
Maximum database write batch size in bytes (default: ca
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288#discussion_r2048663455)
The suggestion sounds reasonable. I'd be happy to review a pull doing it.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "estimateSmartFee error: "Insufficient data or no feerate found"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32178)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "estimateSmartFee error: "Insufficient data or no feerate found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32178#issuecomment-2812429621)
This works as expected, as far as I can see, so closing for now.

🤔 mabu44 reviewed a pull request: "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288#pullrequestreview-2775301401)
utACK 27f11217ca63e0f8f78f14db139150052dcd9962

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Slim down lint image"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32250)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: drop -priority-level from bench in win cross CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32288)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Document WITH_EXTERNAL_LIBMULTIPROCESS build option better"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32271)

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "ci: failure in Windows cross-test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32291)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/14511726586/job/40715228086#step:6:10
```bash
Running with -sanity-check option, output is being suppressed as benchmark results will be useless.
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::filesystem::__cxx11::filesystem_error'
what(): filesystem error: cannot remove all: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process [C:\Users\RUNNER~1\AppData\Local\Temp\test_common bitcoin\WalletMigration\9ab4a7c9fd086
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32292)
Backports for `29.x`:

- #32248

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Remove support for RNDR/RNDRRS for aarch64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32248#issuecomment-2812503258)
Backported in #32292.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[29.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32292#issuecomment-2812511085)
Could also add https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32184 ?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "build: document `BITCOIN_GENBUILD_NO_GIT` environment variable?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31999#issuecomment-2812522853)
(removed from 29.0 milestone, as the release is out)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#discussion_r2048729362)
> Then the dead code was removed in #24562 and the documentation was not updated then either. Now the documentation is being updated in this PR, even though this PR is not changing that behavior? Is that correct?

I actually did not recall 24562 when fixing the docs here. My understanding is that the docs were wrong since they were written in commit cc0243ad32cee1cc9faab317364b889beaf07647. Pulls 15557 and 24562 did not influence the docs being wrong.



> it's pretty confusing and doesn't
...