🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: bump to latest config.guess and config.sub"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32505)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#issuecomment-2886037713)
`4f635d100d...8668b0c64d`: address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#discussion_r2072443916

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#discussion_r2092602639)
Changed to

```cpp
bool AlreadyConnectedToAddressPort(const std::string& addr_port);
bool AlreadyConnectedToAddressPort(const CService& addr_port);
bool AlreadyConnectedToAddress(const CNetAddr& addr);
```

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "Update minisketch subtree"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32485#pullrequestreview-2845934886)
ACK 46b533dfe6fc6c956ac178896d9caf1d59b73d9f

The changes look correct vs upstream.

Apologies for my git-ignorance, but why are there two commits with the same changes? Is that how a subtree update normally looks?

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#pullrequestreview-2845962709)
re-ACK 8668b0c64d59d4dd7207bf8347b23b8b50aeb7c3

Just changed prefixes from `Is-` -> `Already-` and nicely simplified message in initial commit as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#discussion_r2072443916.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Add application manifests when cross-compiling for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32396#issuecomment-2886076162)
Guix Build
```bash
14f6c52455cfd4f871e97271938e906137d0a0eac8adb381cf22775e71e9662a guix-build-8f4fed7ec700/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
793ebdb24d8956a0829c59074e3a5748b0914aa34f076956a6d0b4ef09274187 guix-build-8f4fed7ec700/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8f4fed7ec700-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
6bc3f991fce9e2f3dbd9e8aafd3f5a3957f92fdef478c1b95af2e5badfaddc30 guix-build-8f4fed7ec700/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8f4fed7ec700-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
e475ede22a88ba1ca
...

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "refactor: bdb removals"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511#pullrequestreview-2845971700)
crACK fafee85358397289aa4c6b799d2603a5d89e83a2

The functions in the last 3 commits do look like good helper functions but I don't mind their removal as they are not used besides tests, making it easier to navigate the codebase that I prefer.
An alternative could be to move some of them under tests directory. But fine with current state of the PR too.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update minisketch subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32485#issuecomment-2886088208)
> Apologies for my git-ignorance, but why are there two commits with the same changes? Is that how a subtree update normally looks?

If you want to preserve the subtree, the only way to update is via a merge (I think), so you need one commit for the subtree changes itself and then a merge commit to merge them into this repo.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update minisketch subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32485#issuecomment-2886091020)
lgtm ACK 46b533dfe6fc6c956ac178896d9caf1d59b73d9f

The changes look like the merged upstream changes. I haven't run the subtree check locally to confirm.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: bdb removals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511#issuecomment-2886105442)
> The functions in the last 3 commits do look like good helper functions but I don't mind their removal as they are not used besides tests, making it easier to navigate the codebase that I prefer.
> An alternative could be to move some of them under tests directory. But fine with current state of the PR too.

It is hard for me to see a use case for the functions, even in tests. The tests only used them to generate dummy values, but those are trivially created inline. Generally, when it comes
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update minisketch subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32485#issuecomment-2886105544)
For reference, the command used here is `git subtree pull --prefix src/minisketch https://github.com/bitcoin-core/minisketch.git master --squash`.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Update minisketch subtree"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32485)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "fuzz: Delete wallet_notifications"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32526#pullrequestreview-2846049871)
ACK fad2faf6c5d8f09a91fb291e30b4989b06a6fe86

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Remove unused verify_flags suppression"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32527)
`static bool verify_flags(unsigned)` was removed in commit 80f8b92f4f2311b9e9a25361c9dd973244e6f95c

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "test: Remove unused verify_flags suppression"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32527#pullrequestreview-2846116986)
ACK fab5a3c803c7427ab5a6f4b478bf0ea7a734537a

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2886216404)
> 2\. what guarantees do we need to provide? Are we just protecting against power outages? Cosmic bit-flip corruption? Bad sectors?

I'd say ideally all of them. In the rare case where they happen, detecting them early on Bitcoin Core startup (before a validation-internal assert is hit) may help finding the root-cause and also could free up some developer time due to making it easier to remote-diagnose hardware issues (many of them have more than 5 comments: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2886268084)
Same here: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5811469742243840?logs=ci#L1

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: remove 3rd party js from windows dll gha job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32513#issuecomment-2886274977)
> It might be better to use a more general solution for setting up VS prompts, this would also work once #32396 is merged.

@m3dwards

Could you please rebase this PR on top of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32396?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "test: Remove unused verify_flags suppression"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32527#pullrequestreview-2846209173)
ACK fab5a3c803c7427ab5a6f4b478bf0ea7a734537a, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2886364853)
Same https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4561849141690368?logs=ci#L6059

So I guess this was recently introduced