💬 glozow commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#discussion_r2373272312)
I'd agree with this approach

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "[30.0] Final changes + rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33424#pullrequestreview-3259382528)
ACK 7ebdfa2173b90faad71057d37b6b71c462dd3ea1

Backports are clean.

None added to release notes, but I don't think any particularly need to be (#33333 could be the only potential candidate here IMO).

💬 achow101 commented on issue "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468#issuecomment-3325340756)
Can you be more specific as to which configuration you had? Was it bdb-descriptor or sqlite-legacy?

Either way, both of those are not supported wallet configurations and are not possible to create without modifying the software.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33408)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "cli: Handle arguments that can be either JSON or string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33230#issuecomment-3325352104)
Rebased

💬 jb55 commented on issue "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468#issuecomment-3325363600)
bdb-descriptor. I don't think I ran modified software, I do remember importing descriptors exported via hwi a long time ago.

✅ jb55 closed an issue: "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468)

💬 jb55 commented on issue "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468#issuecomment-3325372801)
anyway I fixed it, all good

💬 achow101 commented on issue "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468#issuecomment-3325389924)
It was only possible to create bdb-descriptor with a build of master for the 5 months between #16528 and #19077. I'm surprised that `migratewallet` works on those wallets when removing that check.

My typical recommendation for such wallets is to use `bitcoin-wallet dump` and `bitcoin-wallet createfromdump` to export the records and the load them into a new sqlite database.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: fix for macOS deployment build failing on Qt translations even though it is optional.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33358#issuecomment-3325406653)
Thanks. You'll need to remove the merge commit here. Can you change the commit message to something more like: `contrib: fix using macdeploy script without translations`.

💬 jb55 commented on issue "sqlite legacy descriptor wallet migration fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33468#issuecomment-3325407230)
ok I will try that instead just in case

💬 00w1 commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3325429769)
I just wanted to share the reason why this pull request is open and not closed by maintainers:

<img width="289" height="209" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5415c037-23f2-4e68-b0dd-8f551049a5a6" />

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3325450088)
@00w1 personal attacks are off topic and result in a ban re: moderation policy. Technical and conceptual discussion is the only type of comment that is allowed.

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "TxGraph: change m_excluded_clusters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33469)
Change BlockBuilderImpl's m_excluded_clusters to unordered set since ordering is not used.

Change the set to a set of sequence numbers for a modest stability increase under fuzz testing.

This shouldn't be merged until https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33157 is merged.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxGraph: change m_excluded_clusters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33469#issuecomment-3325464372)
h/t @marcofleon for validation of changes

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "TxGraph: change m_excluded_clusters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33469)
Change BlockBuilderImpl's m_excluded_clusters to unordered set since ordering is not used.

Change the set to a set of sequence numbers for a modest stability increase under fuzz testing.

This shouldn't be merged until https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33157 is merged.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test: fix p2p_leak_tx.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33121#discussion_r2373401843)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test: fix p2p_leak_tx.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33121#issuecomment-3325493472)
[e14825a](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e14825ace2a8c6abcf11fdfb5057e969cd64b146) to [3f59775](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3f597750a659616e57f63c6bfc85d70894072c42): Rebased due to conflict with #33448, addressed nit.

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "guix: Added guix-shasums script for gathering and formatting build output checksums":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33465#issuecomment-3325505399)
## Guix Build Output

**Host architecture:** `aarch64`
**Commit:** `a6cdf0368194`

### File Checksums

| SHA256 | FILE |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|
| `631ef0d74ff8260c57cb0bfd5d5592735eb659852b97bd6312ede60297a25354` | `guix-build-a6cdf0368194/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part` |
| `8b444b56d08047c199635bd150bca809aade5458df4db4f1ed99939b998371cd` | `guix-
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Added guix-shasums script for gathering and formatting build output checksums":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33465#issuecomment-3325518038)
~0. I'm not sure if 90 lines of bash, is better than documenting and using the one-liner? Note that the markdown also bloats the size of the comment dramatically (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33465#issuecomment-3325505399), compared to what is currently used (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33185#issuecomment-31968446200 (and makes it harder to copy paste).