💬 fanquake commented on issue "rpc_getblockfrompeer.py intermittent failure: assert_equal(pruneheight, 248); not(249 == 248)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27749#issuecomment-1562574435)
@Sjors

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1562580491)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4751246913961984?logs=ci#L2724:
```bash
test/denialofservice_tests.cpp(134): Entering test case "stale_tip_peer_management"
test/denialofservice_tests.cpp(212): error: in "denialofservice_tests/stale_tip_peer_management": check vNodes[i]->fDisconnect == false has failed
test/denialofservice_tests.cpp(214): error: in "denialofservice_tests/stale_tip_peer_management": check vNodes[max_outbound_full_relay - 2]->fDisconnect == true has failed
test/denialofservice_test
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735#issuecomment-1562597550)
> Yeah, the test doesn't need the wallet, but it is providing mempool-package coverage for the listunspent wallet RPC. So maybe an alternative would be to move it out into a new test, idk?

Would be in favor of moving the listunspent coverage to a new/existing `wallet_` functional test instead.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "25.0 Final Changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27686#issuecomment-1562602731)
ACK 6ee3881551f2cd411c4e4d8b0ccedf0f0416d8c2

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735#issuecomment-1562610976)
Ok, I'll leave this bugfix open for review for now. I can close once and if there is another pull that moves the check somewhere else.

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#pullrequestreview-1443525129)
re-ACK eefe56967b

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "kernel: Remove util/system from kernel library, interface_ui from validation.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#discussion_r1205282280)
Yeah you're right, I was leaving comments on a per-commit review basis, but it's removed later on in 7d3b35004b039f2bd606bb46a540de7babdbc41e . Can (should) be removed in this commit already, though. But no biggie either way.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Use 'byte'/'bytes' for bech32(m) validation error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27747#issuecomment-1562633587)
lgtm ACK 3d0a5c37e9ccedfa4ecfaa48eeeca1ada5b4eec1

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "25.0 Final Changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27686)

💬 ChrisCho-H commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1562645400)
rebase done!

💬 fanquake commented on issue "v25.0 testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27621#issuecomment-1562651354)
`25.0` has been tagged.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "v25.0 testing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27621)

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750)
Backports https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727 to 25.x.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1562653872)
`v25.0` has been tagged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v25.0.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Release schedule for 25.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549)

⚠️ fanquake unpinned an issue: "Release schedule for 25.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549)
Here is a proposed release schedule for 25.0, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. I've aimed for a release *7* months [1] after the (planned) release of the last (#24987).

[1] Usually it would be 6 months, but due to delays in the previous release, there is one additional month this time.

## 2023-03-01 :heavy_check_mark:
- Open Transifex translations for 25.0
- Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
- Finalize and close translation
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562662588)
Should be a clean cherry-pick last time I checked. The previous branches conflict in the tests.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562664356)
Happy to just do it as I've done here. Am fixing the conflicts in 24.x.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562676654)
Yeah, I was trying to say lgtm. Sorry if this was unclear.

clean cherry-pick ACK 796e1145a93f4584936528aa27c4f6b2016263d9 💼

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJ
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "rpc: Use 'byte'/'bytes' for bech32(m) validation error message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27747)