🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: Build `qt` package for FreeBSD hosts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32731)

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "checkqueue: implement a new scriptcheck worker pool with atomic variables":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32791#issuecomment-3009069508)
> For the CI docs, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/ci#ci-scripts, but you'll likely have to run that on a 64 core system to recreate the system error

Thanks, maflcko. The thing is this patchset is to extend numbers of scriptcheck threads to nCores-1, so I guess it bound to fail the CI tests. What should I do now.

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2169453387)
Fixed

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2169457387)
You are right it should be scalled down and rounded up as done in ` return (std::max(nWeight, nSigOpCost * bytes_per_sigop) + WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR - 1) / WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR; `. Fixed in [d6f4caf](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800/commits/d6f4caf851ad7a4d9df7a8dc67215870ba9bfe14)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "node: cap `-maxmempool` and `-dbcache` values for 32-bit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530)

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2169463734)
Added in [d6f4caf](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800/commits/d6f4caf851ad7a4d9df7a8dc67215870ba9bfe14). Thanks.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "node: cap `-maxmempool` and `-dbcache` values for 32-bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530#issuecomment-3009086333)
Backported to 29.x in #32810.

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "test: Turn util/test_runner into functional test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32697#pullrequestreview-2962749484)
re-ACK fa2163159511a099ecffde2bfddf9cfe33eb9c76

Verified minor changes since my last review: `self.log`usage, catch-throw removal and error message into `Exception`.

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2169464510)
Fixed

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "clang-format: modernize and realign clang-format configuration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32813#discussion_r2169464696)
Again, as said in my previous comment this doesn't work, because older clang-formats will just error out:

```
$ clang-format-16 -i src/bench/prevector.cpp
/b-c/src/.clang-format:12:3: error: unknown key 'AlignFunctionPointers'
AlignFunctionPointers: false
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Error reading /b-c/src/.clang-format: Invalid argument

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "checkqueue: implement a new scriptcheck worker pool with atomic variables":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32791#issuecomment-3009089895)
> Hint: Call /ci_container_base/test/functional/combine_logs.py '/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_runner/test_runner_₿_🏃_20250626_150635/wallet_fundrawtransaction_252'

In my local run, I can do something like this to see the bitcoind log (node log as I said), but how can I see the bitcoind log on Cirrus CI, seems no way to do that since that is not exposed.

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "Add release note for #32530"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32819)

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads 10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-3009101750)
Hi folks, this looks great, since if all the `prevout coins` of all transactions of a block are loaded in advance, then the optimization in #32791 makes sense.

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#issuecomment-3009102393)
I think I'll drop bf63317ae7395b0509f86e2c188b1c6cacf995de and revert to only db63d5bf81 (unless someone sees a blocking reason and the need to use uint32 instead of int32).

Changing to uint32 needs many changes in FeeFrac (which I would like to avoid touching). In FeeFrac size is defined as an int32_t so using uint32 doesn't give us any "advantage".

Friendly ping @davidgumberg @Eunovo @sipa to know your opinion :)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "checkqueue: implement a new scriptcheck worker pool with atomic variables":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32791#issuecomment-3009103057)
> is not exposed.

it is: See " View more details on Cirrus CI " on the checks page

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2169456219)
accidental comment?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2169473815)
this changes behavior a bit but should give the coverage we want still, as all we care about is getting 1p2c into mempool with TRUC

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#pullrequestreview-2962737235)
ACK 0feecd78e52aede26c07391b9f361410e6a8a4ad

though I think the last two commits can be squashed

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "`dumptxoutset` rollback feature does not take forks into account":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32817#issuecomment-3009115241)
We could also automate it: Iterate over the block index to also find all fork blocks at the target height and invalidate those, only then do the invalidation on the main chain / do the dump, and finally reconsider everything. Though I'm not sure if that would be overkill.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer in Debug build: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-3009115501)
I'm going to debug-build and restart an IBD on another 4CPU 8GB VM from recent master commit c43cc48aaa with `txindex=1` and I'll keep an eye on it -- if it syncs without OOM I'll just close this issue