💬 0xB10C commented on issue "tracing: issue running `contrib/tracing/log_utxos.bt`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33227#issuecomment-3206722277)
To confirm, this is on `aarch64`, correct? I'll see if I can get a machine to test this.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33227#issuecomment-3206722277)
To confirm, this is on `aarch64`, correct? I'll see if I can get a machine to test this.
💬 fanquake commented on issue "tracing: issue running `contrib/tracing/log_utxos.bt`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33227#issuecomment-3206727240)
> To confirm, this is on aarch64, correct?
Yes, aarch64.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33227#issuecomment-3206727240)
> To confirm, this is on aarch64, correct?
Yes, aarch64.
👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "[29.x] 33106 backport and final changes for rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#pullrequestreview-3137001892)
utACK 0034dcfba9dc599449e7569ed1b30e58d4f4434f
(pending CI)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#pullrequestreview-3137001892)
utACK 0034dcfba9dc599449e7569ed1b30e58d4f4434f
(pending CI)
💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392)
> > Please take a step back and just think like a user. v29 shipped with `bitcoind`. They'll now see `bitcoin`, `bitcoind`, and `bitcoin-node`. Even if their behavior doesn't have to change at all, anyone could be forgiven for being confused by that.
>
> @theuni could it be that the context you are describing is the `<<buid-dir>>/bin` directory and not the result of `cmake --install ` result that splits binaries in `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/bin` and `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/libexec` (as per #31679)?
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392)
> > Please take a step back and just think like a user. v29 shipped with `bitcoind`. They'll now see `bitcoin`, `bitcoind`, and `bitcoin-node`. Even if their behavior doesn't have to change at all, anyone could be forgiven for being confused by that.
>
> @theuni could it be that the context you are describing is the `<<buid-dir>>/bin` directory and not the result of `cmake --install ` result that splits binaries in `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/bin` and `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/libexec` (as per #31679)?
...
💬 janb84 commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206789051)
>
> Heh, I promise I understand the `libexec/` distinction. Really. I understand its use as a path for subcommand execution (ala git). Really.
>
> I only mentioned it because I was picturing a user downloading from bitcoincore.org (it's the binary release that we're all arguing about, right?), unpacking it, and seeing new files.
>
Thank you for this insight, did not think of this while reviewing the conversation / PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206789051)
>
> Heh, I promise I understand the `libexec/` distinction. Really. I understand its use as a path for subcommand execution (ala git). Really.
>
> I only mentioned it because I was picturing a user downloading from bitcoincore.org (it's the binary release that we're all arguing about, right?), unpacking it, and seeing new files.
>
Thank you for this insight, did not think of this while reviewing the conversation / PR.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Crash on launch in PruneBlockIndexCandidates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33129#issuecomment-3206789552)
With the datadir deleted (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33127#issuecomment-3177718602), this makes it harder to debug without any debug log or state to investigate. Maybe this can be closed for now?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33129#issuecomment-3206789552)
With the datadir deleted (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33127#issuecomment-3177718602), this makes it harder to debug without any debug log or state to investigate. Maybe this can be closed for now?
💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206842147)
@TheBlueMatt I agree that having the experience be seamless for miners is the goal. I more meant for the purposes of SRI contributors and maybe a couple of brave miners who are willing to help with testing of Core and SV2, so we can avoid buggy code in releases.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206842147)
@TheBlueMatt I agree that having the experience be seamless for miners is the goal. I more meant for the purposes of SRI contributors and maybe a couple of brave miners who are willing to help with testing of Core and SV2, so we can avoid buggy code in releases.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206864744)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206701996
> > I'm in favor of multiprocess happening when it's ready. We should have a point in time where we decide, as a project, to start moving everything to multiprocess. At that point, there will inevitably be a mental cost to users, but at least it can be explained then as "this gives you the benefit of process separation, being able to run wallets elsewhere, stop/start gui independently from node, ...", and it'll be used
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206864744)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206701996
> > I'm in favor of multiprocess happening when it's ready. We should have a point in time where we decide, as a project, to start moving everything to multiprocess. At that point, there will inevitably be a mental cost to users, but at least it can be explained then as "this gives you the benefit of process separation, being able to run wallets elsewhere, stop/start gui independently from node, ...", and it'll be used
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "CI: silent merge check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33145#discussion_r2288552077)
Yeah, merging this with the main CI file is certainly better, if possible. However, it still leaves the issue of label spam. Also, it needs to be confirmed to be working correctly (to send the failed-notification to the right person)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33145#discussion_r2288552077)
Yeah, merging this with the main CI file is certainly better, if possible. However, it still leaves the issue of label spam. Also, it needs to be confirmed to be working correctly (to send the failed-notification to the right person)
📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "Bugfix: AllocateFileRange: Address various issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33228)
Not a real fix for #33128, but a workaround for the issue.
Potentially might fix #28552 too, but I don't have a way to reproduce that. (After digging into Apple's XNU code, it looks too buggy to try to use `F_PREALLOCATE` at all IMO; for reference: [XNU kernel code](https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/e3723e1f17661b24996789d8afc084c0c3303b26/bsd/kern/kern_descrip.c#L3289) and [HFS driver code](https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/hfs/blob/a4bba3ecca6d79d997caf27c9a388eb1
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33228)
Not a real fix for #33128, but a workaround for the issue.
Potentially might fix #28552 too, but I don't have a way to reproduce that. (After digging into Apple's XNU code, it looks too buggy to try to use `F_PREALLOCATE` at all IMO; for reference: [XNU kernel code](https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/e3723e1f17661b24996789d8afc084c0c3303b26/bsd/kern/kern_descrip.c#L3289) and [HFS driver code](https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/hfs/blob/a4bba3ecca6d79d997caf27c9a388eb1
...
💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#issuecomment-3206928002)
> The alternative would be to raise the level of abstraction and use `std::shared_ptr<T const>` as an implementation detail.
> I understand that this may conflict with your approach of giving access to both the pointer and the pointee through the public API. I would prefer to delay this PR until we reached consensus on the ownership approach for the API.
It seams like we reached consensus that we will **not** provide access to the pointee through the public api. That means we can replace `st
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#issuecomment-3206928002)
> The alternative would be to raise the level of abstraction and use `std::shared_ptr<T const>` as an implementation detail.
> I understand that this may conflict with your approach of giving access to both the pointer and the pointee through the public API. I would prefer to delay this PR until we reached consensus on the ownership approach for the API.
It seams like we reached consensus that we will **not** provide access to the pointee through the public api. That means we can replace `st
...
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206935621)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392
> They'll encounter the old `bitcoind` binary, a new `bitcoin` binary, and a new `bitcoin-node` binary in a weird directory that seems to do the same thing as `bitcoind` if they try to run it.
This also seems like actionable feedback. Note there is also a `test_bitcoin` binary in the `libexec/` directory and a [readme](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README.md) file in the root directory to help or
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206935621)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392
> They'll encounter the old `bitcoind` binary, a new `bitcoin` binary, and a new `bitcoin-node` binary in a weird directory that seems to do the same thing as `bitcoind` if they try to run it.
This also seems like actionable feedback. Note there is also a `test_bitcoin` binary in the `libexec/` directory and a [readme](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README.md) file in the root directory to help or
...
🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "index: Fix coinstats overflow"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#pullrequestreview-3137273070)
I like the approach, though it's a little bit weird that
`m_total_amount` and `m_total_unspendable_amount` are first removed in e54317bf7c1b93d790e169759f64a4564a96ea5f, and after that reintroduced in 053ac55eb569be6b49c5249a7d8c0eeaa149a18b. Happy to ACK once @achow101's point about `m_total_unspendables_bip30` is addressed (which I also tripped over).
> somehow we ever have the situation where we are appending a block that doesn't build on the index's current block hash.
I kinda view
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#pullrequestreview-3137273070)
I like the approach, though it's a little bit weird that
`m_total_amount` and `m_total_unspendable_amount` are first removed in e54317bf7c1b93d790e169759f64a4564a96ea5f, and after that reintroduced in 053ac55eb569be6b49c5249a7d8c0eeaa149a18b. Happy to ACK once @achow101's point about `m_total_unspendables_bip30` is addressed (which I also tripped over).
> somehow we ever have the situation where we are appending a block that doesn't build on the index's current block hash.
I kinda view
...
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: unify `datacarriersize` warning with release notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33224#pullrequestreview-3137349429)
ACK 2885bd0e1c4fc863a7f28ff0fd353f5cffb03442
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33224#pullrequestreview-3137349429)
ACK 2885bd0e1c4fc863a7f28ff0fd353f5cffb03442
💬 why9201110859430801-arc commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e44d72b6480acb356f0a4793a76a5e2bc4e4118d#commitcomment-164320743)
Welcome to the work for run our all goals and next change with Bitcoin token"z or Z'token Bitcoin u understand this name is not me control follow sky can see company what u do ....please
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e44d72b6480acb356f0a4793a76a5e2bc4e4118d#commitcomment-164320743)
Welcome to the work for run our all goals and next change with Bitcoin token"z or Z'token Bitcoin u understand this name is not me control follow sky can see company what u do ....please
💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2288681559)
I think the deep nesting can be avoided with the approach mentioned in https://habla.news/u/purplekarrot.net/cmake-import-export
Also, I don't think the `#else` branch is needed. To my knowledge, there is no platform that supports C++20 but neither dllexport nor visibility.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2288681559)
I think the deep nesting can be avoided with the approach mentioned in https://habla.news/u/purplekarrot.net/cmake-import-export
Also, I don't think the `#else` branch is needed. To my knowledge, there is no platform that supports C++20 but neither dllexport nor visibility.
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Release: Prepare "Translation string freeze" step"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33193)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33193)
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[29.x] 33106 backport and final changes for rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#issuecomment-3207112148)
@1ma
> What is the criteria for backporting PRs to point releases? Sub 1 s/vB standardization is certainly not a bugfix.
Any moderate or severe performance degradation is worth considering for backport, if it can be done cleanly, and has been done many times. Block propagation slowdowns that are avoidable are withing scope. Updating minor versions is much easier than main for production environments.
having not reviewed the backport effort here, concept ack
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#issuecomment-3207112148)
@1ma
> What is the criteria for backporting PRs to point releases? Sub 1 s/vB standardization is certainly not a bugfix.
Any moderate or severe performance degradation is worth considering for backport, if it can be done cleanly, and has been done many times. Block propagation slowdowns that are avoidable are withing scope. Updating minor versions is much easier than main for production environments.
having not reviewed the backport effort here, concept ack
🤔 danielabrozzoni reviewed a pull request: "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#pullrequestreview-3137421954)
Code Review ACK 53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773
I reviewed the code and checked that tests were passing locally, but didn't do any extensive testing.
This PR makes the `HEADER_COMMITMENT_PERIOD` and `REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE` configurable by the tests, instead of using an hardcoded value, to avoid ending up testing an unrealistic behavior once `REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE` surpasses 15_000 in 0.30.
(I like how we can test what could happen using the first commit and investigating the
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#pullrequestreview-3137421954)
Code Review ACK 53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773
I reviewed the code and checked that tests were passing locally, but didn't do any extensive testing.
This PR makes the `HEADER_COMMITMENT_PERIOD` and `REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE` configurable by the tests, instead of using an hardcoded value, to avoid ending up testing an unrealistic behavior once `REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE` surpasses 15_000 in 0.30.
(I like how we can test what could happen using the first commit and investigating the
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix compatibility with `-debuglogfile` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288730023)
```suggestion
RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "", "Verification finished successfully. If false, check debug log for reason."},
```
I don't think it makes sense to include the real filename in RPC results.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288730023)
```suggestion
RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "", "Verification finished successfully. If false, check debug log for reason."},
```
I don't think it makes sense to include the real filename in RPC results.