💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: refactor mempool_accept_wtxid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33067#issuecomment-3126119690)
> This PR improves mempool_accept_wtxid.py by:
>
> 1. Using a pre-mined chain instead of generating new blocks [522bf76](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/522bf76d7d8058872a008a721831da264881746d)
>
> 2. Using MiniWallet to avoid RPC calls for signing transactions [4ec5ae9](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4ec5ae9fe126ffabcd429277092e3b27f483d430)
>
> 3. Removing child txid variables and using txid.hex directly [361ebd5](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/co
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: fix RPC coverage check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064#issuecomment-3126161329)
lgtm ACK 8aed477c3322212a636ab69d4923f89e2d9a63a2

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439#issuecomment-3126171593)
> FYI my build fails. (But this may have nothing to do with the migration to codeber.):

Yes, the change here is unrelated to the package in Guix.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run unit test parallel with functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3126249529)
> Does it help with the new CI? With the old CI system planned to be replaced, it makes little sense to fine-tune it this late, so I'll turn this into a draft for now.

cc @m3dwards @willcl-ark

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3126274500)
This push extracts the repeated `set CI directories` and `Set cache paths` logic into a `configure-environment` action

```yaml
- name: Set CI directories
run: |
echo "BASE_ROOT_DIR=${{ runner.temp }}" >> "$GITHUB_ENV"
echo "BASE_BUILD_DIR=${{ runner.temp }}/build-${{ matrix.build-dir-suffix }}" >> "$GITHUB_ENV"
- name: Set cache paths
run: |
...
```

and simplifies the `configure-docker` action string building to avoid repeat
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Run unit test parallel with functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3126276906)
I'd say it should be done after the move. No need to delay the move or block it on this.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070)

✅ rkrux closed a pull request: "rpc, doc: clarify watch-only wallets balances in RPCHelp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32761)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3126343860)
Some noteworthy observations from the last two weeks of runs:

1. We have seen variance in network speeds occasionally which has been raised with Cirrus. e.g. in [this run](https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin/actions/runs/16564301804/job/46840539119#step:4:48) we can see a cache restore hanging for 5 minutes:

<img width="2078" height="498" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f87526f7-386b-40c8-9b3a-f9e7ca284c8f" />

It seems to manifest intermitte
...

📝 willcl-ark opened a pull request: "guix: warn SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set in guix-codesign"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33073)
#32678 added a sanity check for this environment variable when running `guix-build` but missed that `guix-codesign` also relies on `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`, which can result in non-determinism in the codesigning step: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/guix.sigs/pull/1720#issuecomment-3124332676

To avoid repeating the logic move common functionality into the prelude and call the function in both guix actions.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "doc: add note for watch-only wallet migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32866#discussion_r2235557541)
Done

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "doc: add note for watch-only wallet migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32866#issuecomment-3126359553)
> ACK [9d25880](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d25880bb720bc675a533098268b9e02f86e17ce)
>
> Happy to re-ack if you touch it again to address the LLM linter suggestion.

Done

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33074)
Backports:
* #33070

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2235578787)
Yeah agreed, to be left as follow-up if others agree.

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "doc: Add legacy wallet removal release notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33075)
This spans over several pulls, so add a single note for all of them.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070#issuecomment-3126383385)
Backported to 29.x in #33074.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[28.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33076)
Backports:
* #33001
* #33070

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc/zmq: fix unix socket path example":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33070#issuecomment-3126392391)
Backported to `28.x` in #33076.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#issuecomment-3126393675)
Backported to `28.x` in #33076

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: fix RPC coverage check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064#issuecomment-3126398686)
> Question: would it make sense to also test "abortrescan" during an active rescan to hit the True path and ensure the scan halts as expected?

Feel free to open a new PR, adding additional test changes.