💬 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).

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#pullrequestreview-3259502806)
It looks like 3eab8b724044dc321f70e5eed66b149713158a04 was skipped in the backport? It doesn't seem like there are significant conflicts and it makes 2e756e8b02d30e9baacd36d4e519ab64421778ba easier to review.

> IIUC we skipped backporting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30125 as it's quite involved (also see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31422#pullrequestreview-2607160362)

It backports without issue to 28.x. For 27.x, the second commit is complicated, but I think it could
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[28.x] More backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#discussion_r2373386807)
In f8006d9df08597bc2f4e85d32bff677c27c36ced "[prep/test] make wallet_fundrawtransaction's minrelaytxfee assumption explicit"

`settxfee` is not deprecated in 28.x, so including this change is unnecessary.

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#pullrequestreview-3259576347)
ACK 1b1f359fc43385cb4d465b15754dac84eef06873

#33106 backport is naturally a bit tricky to review, especially as I didn't review the original PR.

That said, `git-range-diff` helped out a fair bit e.g. `git range-diff e5f896bb1f052fb8c7811c6024cb49143b427512..ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791 6090af0d350..2e756e8b02d` uses the range-diff algo on the two commit ranges, which is pretty neat! It helped me identify the "massaging" that was needed for the backport, which looks fine to me.
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "[28.x] More backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#issuecomment-3325544285)
> It looks like [3eab8b7](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3eab8b724044dc321f70e5eed66b149713158a04) was skipped in the backport? It doesn't seem like there are significant conflicts and it makes [2e756e8](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2e756e8b02d30e9baacd36d4e519ab64421778ba) easier to review.

Ah, I was just complaining about this offline, and now see it in the range-diff too. That would have indeed made it easier to review.

```
6: 3eab8b72404 < -: ----------- [
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[28.x] More backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#issuecomment-3325559708)
> It looks like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3eab8b724044dc321f70e5eed66b149713158a04 was skipped in the backport? It doesn't seem like there are significant conflicts and it makes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2e756e8b02d30e9baacd36d4e519ab64421778ba easier to review.

My bad - I missed that commit and it didn't hit me that there was a separate commit while I was resolving the conflicts.