💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#discussion_r2219264339)
Fair, it does feel cleaner using GenTxid and avoiding the branch in `ProcessGetData`. I chose to templatize in response to this [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#pullrequestreview-2877628308) from the original PR. The templating takes care of everything at compile-time, which is nice. But `m_most_recent_block_txs` holds GenTxids, so in the templated version we're creating a temporary GenTxid anyway for that map lookup vs creating a GenTxid once upfront.

I think it's larg
...

💬 danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "p2p: rename GetAddresses -> GetAddressesUncached":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#issuecomment-3096922403)
In my last push (df65b527f00cbf9fd6675bf22bb1285bfce24f66):
- split changes into two commits (one for rename, one for docs)

💬 totdking commented on issue "A missing import to the src/chainparamsbase.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33019#issuecomment-3096966958)
I added the import and it worked :) , thanks man 👍

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "docs: adds correct updated documentation links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-3096984862)
No, you haven't replied/addressed the feedback from June: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#discussion_r2150261914

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "b-msghand invoked oom-killer in Debug build: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561)

💬 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-3096984988)
Closing this now, `Bitcoin Core daemon version v29.99.0-c43cc48aaaaa (debug build)` synced succesfully on a debian VM 8GB memory and no swap

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "Fix tiebreak when loading blocks from disk (and add tests for comparing chain ties)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29640#discussion_r2219412158)
Rebased and fixed

💬 darosior commented on pull request "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012#issuecomment-3097046877)
Rebased to fix a silent merge conflict that was making the "test each commit" CI job fail.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "Fix tiebreak when loading blocks from disk (and add tests for comparing chain ties)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29640#issuecomment-3097049530)
Rebased to switch from the old (removed) `CBlock::hash` property to the recently introduced `hash_int` and `hash_hex`

💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#issuecomment-3097123255)
ACK 249889bee6b88eb9814eb969e6fb108f86a4bf98

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[29.x] Backport #32521":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3097142325)
@darosior could you make the release notes updates as well please? Thanks

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827)

💬 sipa commented on pull request "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012#discussion_r2219485859)
This has no effect. If `err_flag` is already zero, then `err_flah &= ...;` will not change that.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012#discussion_r2219502307)
Oops, thanks. Of course i meant `|=` here.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012#discussion_r2219503216)
There is a couple other occurrences where i must have made the same mistake.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "p2p: rename GetAddresses -> GetAddressesUncached"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#pullrequestreview-3037417577)
ACK df65b527f00cbf9fd6675bf22bb1285bfce24f66

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: rename GetAddresses -> GetAddressesUncached":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#discussion_r2218753790)
clang-format nit
```suggestion
const std::vector<CAddress> v6_addrs{GetAddressesUncached(/*max_addresses=*/0, /*max_pct=*/0, Network::NET_IPV6, /*filtered=*/false)};
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: rename GetAddresses -> GetAddressesUncached":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#discussion_r2219505959)
nit: documentation could be made more consistent, as per e.g. the below diff

<details>
<summary>git diff on df65b527f0</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/src/net.h b/src/net.h
index 61b25bd47d..eb08d9de05 100644
--- a/src/net.h
+++ b/src/net.h
@@ -1169,9 +1169,10 @@ public:

// Addrman functions
/**
- * Return all or many randomly selected addresses, optionally by network.
- * This function does not use an address response cache and should only be
- * used in
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "[29.x] Backport #32521":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3097189377)
Sure, will do.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: rename GetAddresses -> GetAddressesUncached":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#discussion_r2219514574)
`GetAddressesForPeer` might also make sense. I don't really care about it too much, I think all the above options are all fine and the most important thing for me is that they're not the same, which is addressed, so would personally prefer to pick one thing and then move on.