💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#issuecomment-1558819623)
> One alternative could be to manually append to the CI CPP flags, if that's all we wanted.

Or just a configure setting to append CPP flags to the existing ones, instead of replacing the default ones?

Concept ACK

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#issuecomment-1558827148)
> Or just a configure setting to append CPP flags to the existing ones,

There's no need for a new setting. Just use `CPPFLAGS="-DWHATEVER"`. This has worked since #24391.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1201881964)
I wonder if this should be moved to the debug fuzz task to avoid only fuzzing a debug version of boost in all fuzz configs?

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1201884441)
I like that. If anything it makes more sense to me to fuzz the non debug version...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1201886659)
ideally both are fuzzed :)

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#pullrequestreview-1439114903)
lgtm, but the description needs to be adjusted?

⚠️ 137718 opened an issue: "Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27725)
Do you want to rebuild the block database now?

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27725)

👍 ajtowns approved a pull request: "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#pullrequestreview-1438918136)
ACK 3b57b2b8d958871bec9a33953be051a75d8bf07c

Despite thinking this is an improvement on what we currently do and that it's ready for merge, there's two things I'm not 100% comfortable with, and that I think would be good to improve in a followup. (1) I think this puts more demand on outbound peers than it should, as per [previous comments](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1200426349). (2) I think the multimap stuff makes this hard to understand, and it would be good t
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1201730942)
You just iterated over all the peers requesting this block, and returned early if one of them was this node. What's the benefit of looping again?

📝 jonathanbier opened a pull request: "Update policy.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27726)
I think this should be virtual bytes? Or maybe not

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Update policy.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27726#issuecomment-1558979194)
Looks correct to me, cc @Xekyo

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#issuecomment-1558981977)
As some progress is being made in the review of the coupled https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/15, friendly ping @MarcoFalke @stickies-v @ryanofsky :)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#issuecomment-1559014932)
lgtm ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#issuecomment-1559046252)
This change ignores non-main network data. I'm OK with that. But it seems worth mentioning in the docs.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove redundant stdlib option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27721#issuecomment-1559052397)
Guix Build:
```bash
ed1f83a77d00:/bitcoin# find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
b2fc48fff5ef2c15a520582845a8af73c2af71f4f59a0d0b92b04db8530373b0 guix-build-4fe5f3c46752/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d074ce3bdc89db1d7d0e4fcbde818b9a2183c9a23541e2dabcb2401e88635959 guix-build-4fe5f3c46752/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4fe5f3c46752-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
890d8535d8590ceb5d17b0cbd254c4c17e37
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "bitcoin core crashes when too many rpc calls are made":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11368#issuecomment-1559055029)
2.2.1-alpha is [now out](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/releases/tag/release-2.2.1-alpha) 👀

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1202074906)
Right.

Do you think it's best to add to _00_setup_env_native_fuzz.sh_ ?

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#pullrequestreview-1439386025)
ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd

The error reporting in this file is a bit opaque imo, but that is orthogonal to the work here.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#pullrequestreview-1439388072)
ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd