🤔 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
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#discussion_r2048729491)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#discussion_r2048729549)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#discussion_r2048733776)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#issuecomment-2812541235)
Force pushed some doc fixups. Should be trivial to re-review. The win-cross CI failure is unrelated and can be ignored for now.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "util: explicitly close all AutoFiles that have been written":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29307#issuecomment-2812596691)
`1f71111e21...c52b673bf8`: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29307#discussion_r2048480671

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Handle empty string returned by CLI as None in RPC tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32286#issuecomment-2812621654)
Backported in #32292.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#discussion_r2048782819)
_Bringing the anti-`shared_ptr` discussion to its own dedicated thread here._

> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#issuecomment-2711463453
> Instead of passing around shared pointers to mutable data (aka global variables in disguise), would it be possible to increase the level of abstraction and pass around values with regular semantics?

> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#issuecomment-2808714778
> I used to appreciate `shared_ptr`-like constructs, but as @purpleKa
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Add workaround for vcpkg's `libevent` package":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32184#issuecomment-2812628615)
Backported in #32292.

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] specialize block serialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#pullrequestreview-2775072131)
This looks good, but I am not really reproducing any of the performance changes on my machine yet. Maybe my laptop is just too unreliable though.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize block serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#discussion_r2048635108)
Nit: Maybe add a description here too along the lines of:
Check if type contains a SizeComputer by seeing if the return type of T's GetStream() method is a SizeComputer.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize block serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#discussion_r2048540359)
In commit c9a69f9088340df88017752e1016670141b6ad74:

Looking at the concept, could this also be `unsigned char`?