💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r2228937333)
I had forgotten this one , fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/f2a496c827442c7650e5742fdfd49147f0da0143

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: handle potential None value for change address in setlabel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33055#issuecomment-3114023892)
If it wasn't LLM generated, it is still wrong, because the value is never `None`. And if it was, it would have already been handled properly.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Always canonicalize HOST using `./depends/config.sub`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21671#issuecomment-3114038666)
I'm going to remove "Up for grabs" here. Not entirely convinvced that we should end up doing this.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "util: Abort on failing CHECK_NONFATAL in debug builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32588#discussion_r2228952920)
> I think it is 100% accurate, because `test_only_CheckFailuresAreExceptionsNotAborts` does not affect `CHECK_NONFATAL` in commit [fa8251b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fa8251bb883300bb84cad5486468d07b5b1b7322), so the fuzz test and unit test are 100% identical and redundant in this commit.

I wouldn't say it's 100% accurate to say that two tests have identical coverage just because the they have the same results in one commit, especially when the results immediately diverge in th
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add capnp wrapper for Chain interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29409#issuecomment-3114080535)
Rebased f92422e308ec33e2b211b866e218efacc77a4f7f -> c0d9515a3aef468bf4c5949c419ab1c9bab0dfa3 ([`pr/ipc-chain.14`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipc-chain.14) -> [`pr/ipc-chain.15`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipc-chain.15), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/ipc-chain.14-rebase..pr/ipc-chain.15)) to fix silent merge conflict with #32862 and spelling error. (Thanks zaidmstrr and maflcko for pointing these out!)

💬 darosior commented on pull request "[29.x] Backport #32521":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3114084771)
Should i rebase now that #33052 is merged?

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[29.x] Backport #32521"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#pullrequestreview-3052376345)
ACK f25dc84b2892e6bdbbd0471add9fcb2757700981

No you don't need to rebase

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "[29.x] Backport #32521"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "net, validation: don't punish peers for consensus-invalid txs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33050#issuecomment-3114131937)
CI failure here is (#33015).

💬 fanquake commented on issue "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015#issuecomment-3114133331)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6439525662064640?logs=ci#L1711

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#issuecomment-3114134111)
Backported to 29.x in #33013.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Don't fix Python patch version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33051#issuecomment-3114154015)
It's defined here: https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv/blob/master/plugins/python-build/bin/pyenv-install

Which internally calls `pyenv-latest --known`: https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv/blob/master/libexec/pyenv-latest

Which it turn calls `python-build --definitions` as I did.

💬 markhmjv commented on issue "Release Schedule for 30.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32275#issuecomment-3114239525)
13R2tNud3W6e7RLPRwpwkPJND4A4W9mpTG

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "[29.x] final changes for v29.1rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33056)

💬 pstratem commented on pull request "Cache m_cached_finished_ibd where SetTip is called.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32885#issuecomment-3114274259)
> @pstratem, not sure if you saw this, but could be helpful: #25081

That seems like it would be useful, but for now I'm just parsing the lock contention messages out of debug.log

📝 jbampton opened a pull request: "doc(src): fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33057)
Minor PR to fix spelling

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "doc(src): fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33057)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc(src): fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33057#issuecomment-3114286903)
thx, but this is the wrong repo. you'll have to submit upstream

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2229151399)
In `SQLiteStatement::Column<T>()`, one of the ways we construct the appropriate data from a blob is to do `reinterpret_cast<T::value_type>`. `Txid` met all of the requirements for using that constructor, except that it didn't have a `value_type`, hence this commit adding it.

But it looks like I didn't include that commit in this PR. Rather, it's https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33034/commits/afe99b3b7df6c658fb4068c6418dfd7ebf151460 in #33034.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "wallet, rpc: Move (Un)LockCoin WalletBatch creation out of RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32593)