💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3163466142)
Rebased 6a9fdf7ae58a85ccc08c5f6917f64f28f5a330ad -> ce8003578e725cf3c64a0f3e1447459e26955a3d ([kernelApi_49](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_49) -> [kernelApi_50](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_50), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_49..kernelApi_50))

* Fixed conflict with #33077

@stickies-v want to give the mono lib a try in your python bindings?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Removing Bitcoin core text where unnecessary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33126#issuecomment-3163495792)
> Anyways, everything should be fine now, should attach a drahbot guix build request to be sure

Ideally you would do the full guix build yourself and post the build artifact hashes. Your dev environment should have no influence on that. Then reviewers can compare their results to yours.

💬 Ataraxia009 commented on pull request "Removing Bitcoin core text where unnecessary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33126#discussion_r2259856491)
Changing it to `CFBundleName = \"BundleName\"` would be confusing or weird for people just running the raw deploy build, no?

💬 Ataraxia009 commented on pull request "Removing Bitcoin core text where unnecessary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33126#discussion_r2259859427)
Decided @luke-jr 's solution is best here, so adopted the changes suggested here ^

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: fix p2p_leak_tx.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33121#issuecomment-3163563858)
> are we just interested in the `notfound` branch and the rest is there mostly to avoid intermittent failure?

Yes.

I think mocktime could be used to remove the loop and just do a one-shot `notfound` message?

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v30.0" release step"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33152)
This PR follows our [Release Process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/53a996f122663e271efa52c45b173613b8ac635e/doc/release-process.md).

It is required to open Transifex translations for v30.0, as scheduled in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32275.

For reference, see the previous similar PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31809.

**Note for reviewers:**

To reproduce the diff in the last commit, run:
```
cmake --preset dev-mode
cmake --build build_dev_mode
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Use mlc `v1` and fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33125)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Release: Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v30.0" step":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33152#issuecomment-3163592440)
cc @stickies-v @pablomartin4btc @johnny9 @jarolrod as regular reviewers of similar previous PRs.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Release: Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v30.0" step":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33152#issuecomment-3163638263)
Could fix the typo in the source string (found by the llm)?

```diff
diff --git a/src/wallet/wallet.cpp b/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
index 91a494c379..5aeb39283b 100644
--- a/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
+++ b/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
@@ -3149,7 +3149,7 @@ bool CWallet::AttachChain(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>& walletInstance, interf
// but fail the rescan with a generic error.

error = chain.havePruned() ?
- _("Prune: last wallet synchronisat
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Release: Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v30.0" step":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33152#issuecomment-3163679296)
> Could fix the typo in the source string (found by the llm)?
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/src/wallet/wallet.cpp b/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
> index 91a494c379..5aeb39283b 100644
> --- a/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
> +++ b/src/wallet/wallet.cpp
> @@ -3149,7 +3149,7 @@ bool CWallet::AttachChain(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>& walletInstance, interf
> // but fail the rescan with a generic error.
>
> error = chain.havePruned() ?
> - _("Prune:
...

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#issuecomment-3163734910)
> Reviewed [1523e8d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1523e8d6c981efff1394bd1669fbbbea5ff7ac97)
>
> Still had some late suggestions which will hopefully get this in better shape for other reviewers too.
>
Addressed and fixed as suggested. Thanks!!!
> Might be worth pinging some participants from #27591 at this point to see what they think.

Hi @glozow, @ajtowns, @Sjors — since you were involved in [#27591](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591), I’d really appreciate yo
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Release: Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v30.0" step":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33152#issuecomment-3163863156)
> Could fix the typo in the source string (found by the llm)?

Should be done now.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "subtree: update crc32c subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33151#issuecomment-3163874867)
Guix Build:
```bash
6a67327e256f21f227d00a86d47c043cb3560052fcc00a7fc9c044fd88abba2b guix-build-8ef8dd6871dd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d6f9a74ad71de627e02128b06e73174bf2f9960d83c57bededd266a0ff98c76b guix-build-8ef8dd6871dd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8ef8dd6871dd-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
90a00f866defe961409a6edf4ec2ae1d4a6f2667e1f4a8ca8814b18f02eb008a guix-build-8ef8dd6871dd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8ef8dd6871dd-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
fb8e4d04400398dc
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "subtree: update crc32c subtree"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33151)

💬 KaueTech commented on pull request "Add Docker support with multi-arch build and user permissions handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33139#discussion_r2260142850)
I mentioned her — initially it wasn't copy-pasted, but I changed it because Willcl-ark said his version was better, and it really was

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Install internal binaries to <prefix>/libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3163951080)
Guix Build (x86_64):
```bash
9080e91998fa6f384c00a2e3aab6316fdd2174a89a303b0a602880daf515defb guix-build-f49840dd902c/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
c4061ae7a239ea148d2423f7414d9dd03cefbdfd25c2142476fc400b57ccfef8 guix-build-f49840dd902c/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f49840dd902c-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
878588692759d57a0ebb00f3ceded73c53e0c2d9f53dbd0a83549a22d48c007c guix-build-f49840dd902c/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f49840dd902c-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
1ce7c5b
...

✅ KaueTech closed a pull request: "Add Docker support with multi-arch build and user permissions handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33139)

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#pullrequestreview-3096897867)
I think documentation is definitely helpful, but I'm not sure an extra `vsize_bip141` field is really necessary (they can just divide weight by 4) and I don't really see a reason for ca16b18c0eaae270091ede4967002a4c8174090d

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2260150760)
This contradicts the earlier statement that the purpose of sigop-adjusted vsize is to avoid 2D knapsack in block template building.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#discussion_r2260153906)
I don't think the problem is this severe. Rolling the two cost metrics into one helps simplify the template building algorithm.