💬 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)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2229152163)
Hmm, yeah, I guess we don't really need it.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-3114315569)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-3074628613

Thanks for the report! I opened an issue to track this in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/issues/191 and I suspect the changes in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345 could fix this or at least make problem easier to debug.

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2229183945)
Reverted the PR to the previous version

📝 yancyribbens opened a pull request: "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058)
Replace generic assertion with a result specific assertion showing the correctness of the solution found. If the max weight parameter is exceeded, the least valuable `UTXOs` are removed from the result. Therefore, only the most valued _encountered_ `UTXO's` are selected. While the smallest set would include all the most valued `UTXO's`, in the case of the test there is one high value `UTXO` that is never found before the target value is reached.

Correct the test comment to be more specific a
...

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "wallet: Set minversion to FEATURE_LATEST during migration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33041)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#issuecomment-3114358388)
cc @murchandamus

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2229169977)
Slightly unrelated question: given that `WalletLogPrintf` calls `LogInfo` now
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0f86da382d3fdca6fc69ff277794acbc3f1e928d/src/wallet/wallet.h#L940-L943

(which was changed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/facbcd4cef8890ae18976fb53b67ea56b3c04454#diff-bf36b7865eb69d4b0a3576d830004933c82a795d3fd73c8073c11fc2e637a5c4R259-R261), I was wondering if this is the right time to rename the method as well. I don't mind if you think this isn't the place
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2229196695)
nit, if you touch again, please consider adding braces here to avoid confusion

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2229201811)
nit: the commit message claims `This refactor does not change behavior`, but we're removing a redundant space here, which could theoretically invalidate previous log parsers. It seems fine to me to do that, but we might want to mention it in the commit message.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2229178343)
> The whole point of having log levels is that they are used correctly

I wasn't recommending any incorrect usage, was just wondering if it would simplify things if we migrated the warning/error logs before this PR, so that we can automate migration of all remaining ones and remove the `LogInfo` alias here. I'm also fine with it as is.

> If we do care, we should just review it

I'm not against this change, I just don't fully understand why some of the `LogPrintf` weren't migrated, e.g.
*
...