📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "logs: show reindex progress in `ImportBlocks`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33353)
### Summary

When triggering a reindex, users had no indication of how many files remained or how far along the process was.

### Fix

This patch prefetches the target file block file count to be able to show progress information. Instead of just displaying which block file is being processed, it now indicates how many files remain.

### Reproducer + expected results

Running
```bash
cmake -B build && make -C build -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release && ./build/bin/bitcoind -datadir=demo -rei
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334524197)
I think it is useful to to exercise the change address of `send`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334524489)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334525262)
Fixing that is orthogonal to this PR

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334526025)
Updated the name and changed this to use a regex that matches only on a 2 index multipath.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334526200)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334526627)
Updated to `expected_key_leaves`

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334526817)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334527364)
It's not necessary to check for the warning.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334528185)
I don't think refactoring like this is helpful as the resulting functions won't be called by anything else anyways.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334528560)
I don't think this needs to be more verbose.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334529325)
The behavior is simple enough that I don't think a separate function will make this better.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334529748)
Changed to figure out how many wallets are needed automatically.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334530009)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2334530225)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-3271964809)
> Is is supposed to say "... partial signatures could not be created ..." instead? Based on the tone in the message used.

Yes, done.

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "cmake: make missing Python interpreter behaviour more explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33278#discussion_r2334542180)
Concept ACK

I am however unable to trigger the fatal error on `Ubuntu 24.04.3 LTS` with `Python 3.9.23`

Adding a few debug logs show that `Python3::Interpreter` target is set even if the minimum version is not met
<img width="1512" height="916" alt="Screenshot 2025-09-09 at 22 05 38" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/11db8bc0-bccc-43c1-9717-b079e15ddff5" />

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "headerssync: Correct unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#issuecomment-3271990036)
reACK 794a17186d3019713d29213bedd866baa1c81378 - the only change since last ACK was the span nits being applied

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Correct unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2334562200)
Hasn't become intuitive to me yet that the first parameter to `subspan()` is an offset and not a size, but appreciate not having to repeat the identifier. Taken in latest push, including the other transform of the same kind.

Thanks for the review!

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "wallet: warn against accidental unsafe older() import"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33135#pullrequestreview-3202996953)
ACK fe06b92429206aee66d33c843195235f4bb27181 - This new approach of just warning is better than the previous one, nice! I haven't reviewed the code in depth, just did a light code review but tested the behavior in practice and worked fine.

Also, I ran a mutation analysis on these changes and the only uncaught mutant is:
```diff
// Traverse miniscript tree for unsafe use of older()
miniscript::ForEachNode(*m_node, [&](const miniscript::Node<uint32_t>& node) {
-
...