💬 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.

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#issuecomment-3126433719)
> meganit: This newline was logically separating the two commented code blocks and should probably be brought back.
Addressed in [46acee8](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800/commits/46acee890064e69b89f6cc0bc65c625972a4250d)

> nit: It would be good to hyphen-prefix to make it stand out visually (from fields like vsize etc) and also call it "setting" or "argument" rather than "parameter" as those are the terms used in the code.
Fixed as suggested

> nit: I think the end is a bit
...

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "kernel: create monolithic kernel static library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33077)
Currently, consuming `libbitcoinkernel.a` requires all its dependency static libraries to be available. A switch to a monolithic variant, which contains object files from its dependencies, was discussed in the Kernel WG. The necessary preparations in the libsecp256k1 build scripts were completed in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1678, which are now available in this repository since https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33036.

The changes in this PR were picked from https://
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "test: RPC coverage check doesn't work?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27593)