💬 Sjors commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3322957188)
Additionally, maybe dropping the startup warning also makes sense. It's arguably premature when there is no concrete plan to remove the option.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: run s390x job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33436#discussion_r2371586635)
Will this cache anything?

According to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/caches

I see:

> docker.io--tonistiigi--binfmt-latest-linux-x64 30 MB cached 4 days ago
refs/pull/33436/merge
Last used 4 days ago


Which seems a bit odd, but I am not familiar with GHA, nor the `docker/` actions.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3322973150)
> The current code is deprecated in the sense of being unmaintained

Why do you believe it is unmaintained? It is still tested, and there are still contributors who are willing to keep it operational.

🤔 Eunovo reviewed a pull request: "log: always print initial script verification state"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#pullrequestreview-3256881020)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336/commits/010cf81407c0df8de766fd2a116463d180f25f33

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: add Valgrind fuzz":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33461#issuecomment-3323011990)
Seems fine to add, and the runtime seems fast. Though, I wonder how many issues this will find. The only issue I am aware of this year is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32121, but this was only found by adding newly generated fuzz inputs to the qa-assets repo, which already runs this CI task.

(Same feedback for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33425, which seems similar, with the difference of added library hardening?)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: re-add Valgrind job to the CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33411#issuecomment-3323084726)
No objection, but are there any real issues that this task has found in the last years? The only ones I am aware of are false-positives around valgrind and questions around updating the task config itself for a newly added package. If those are the only reasons to add it, the reasoning seems circular and pull request authors having to deal with valgrind false positives directly in their pull requests may even be counter-productive? For example, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31282/files
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3323114350)
The entire change (#32406) needs to be reverted. Un-deprecating it doesn't make any sense as long as it's being sabotaged with new bugs. The default change is the big problem.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix dark mode detection on Linux":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/895#issuecomment-3323130893)
Seems like this could make things worse for native (Qt) environments?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: run native_fuzz_with_msan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33425#issuecomment-3323149107)
Unrelatedly(?), I wonder if it is possible to adjust the existing macos fuzz task to have stdlib hardening enabled.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: support overriding the proxy selection in ConnectNode()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33454#issuecomment-3323153850)
`504803f909...48c5939cf4`: fix tidy, note that also in `master` there is inconsistency: the prototype of `OpenNetworkConnection()` in `net.h` uses `strDest` whereas the implementation in `net.cpp` uses `pszDest`. Resolved by this PR.

> If you're updating the name anyways, maybe just get rid of the hungarian notation and call it `destination`?

Yes, I think this would be very nice to do. I avoided it because it would bloat the diff as a lot of lines inside the body of the functions will be
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3323154136)
Code review ACK 451ba9ada41f687c0e4bb34d5925374a68a8f8a3

> As a best practice, Bitcoin Core has avoided an option when the developers cannot articulate when they should be used.

I like this PR, and think ideally a followup could improve the documentation more to address this problem. I think the documentation could mention the previous default, and that it was changed to improve network efficiency and censorship resistance, but that there are practical and philosophical disagreements about
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: run s390x job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33436#issuecomment-3323201709)
> Will the be useful overall? I think it is clear that no developer is using this platform right now (maybe not even a user), so the benefit of the CI config is mostly a sanity check.

My understanding of this job is that it represents all Big Endian systems, and therefore, as you say just exists as a sanity check (that we don't have any endianness bugs). If nobody uses any BE systems (IBM Z, older SPARC, some powerpc) perhaps it's not even useful in that role though...

I'd agree with havin
...

👍 luke-jr approved a pull request: "rpc: fix getblock(header) returns target for tip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33446#pullrequestreview-3257204496)
crACK bf7996cbc3becf329d8b1cd2f1007fec9b3a3188

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#pullrequestreview-3257209276)
ACK 451ba9ada41f687c0e4bb34d5925374a68a8f8a3

Thanks!

💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3323324465)
Concept NACK

The peeps wanting to reject transactions with this option don't want it.

And in general the extra pool is too small to "cache" a large number of transactions causing rejecting nodes to redownload already seen transactions.

✅ RandyMcMillan closed an issue: "cli:passing non-integers to datacarriersize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33460)

💬 RandyMcMillan commented on issue "cli:passing non-integers to datacarriersize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33460#issuecomment-3323416365)
@maflcko thanks

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33445#pullrequestreview-3257285157)
ACK ecacfac7ead178ace3b0ec9393a7c63b5d8d3576

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33445#discussion_r2371863274)
My understanding is that such default constructing is not needed because `m_search_string` will be default constructed anyway. That is, drop the line `m_search_string()`.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33445#discussion_r2371858856)
Correct me if I am wrong, in the absence of other constructors (like in `RecentRequestEntry`), this line is not needed because it will generate the same constructor that will be generated if we don't specify any constructor. In other words, I suggest to drop the line `RecentRequestEntry() = default;`.