💬 RandyMcMillan commented on pull request "ci: Turn CentOS config into Alpine musl config":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33480#issuecomment-3342049302)
Concept ACK

👍 l0rinc approved a pull request: "test: set par=2 in default config for functional test framework"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33485#pullrequestreview-3275207076)
Code review ACK dda5228e02ca6a839bf87ae7dbd133547563816a

Q: does this affect the `"-par=1"` cases in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/9a04635432183c437829339dbf10e7d702581010/test/functional/p2p_segwit.py#L221 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6980852416040bdddf111df3cea3ec50639f010a/test/functional/feature_proxy.py#L385?

💬 151henry151 commented on pull request "build: Move CMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_RPATH from CMake to Guix script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33470#discussion_r2384416750)
Got it, made that change.

🤔 katesalazar reviewed a pull request: "ci: check if file or directory already exists for ${HOME}/.bitcoin instead of failing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486#pullrequestreview-3275898775)
I don't like how dummy file is now explained much before created.

💬 katesalazar commented on pull request "ci: check if file or directory already exists for ${HOME}/.bitcoin instead of failing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486#discussion_r2385070435)
The dummy file explanation is much early.

💬 katesalazar commented on pull request "ci: check if file or directory already exists for ${HOME}/.bitcoin instead of failing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486#discussion_r2385066324)
You can't leave this line unchanged.

💬 0xhlin commented on issue "v30.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33368#issuecomment-3342908639)
Thanks for this amazing project!

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "test: set par=2 in default config for functional test framework":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33485#issuecomment-3343177555)
> Q: does this affect the "-par=1" cases

No, extra args override args in the configuration file.

💬 RandyMcMillan commented on pull request "ci: Turn CentOS config into Alpine musl config":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33480#issuecomment-3343829884)
tACK

---
It may be worth mentioning that this change fixed an issue (I was unable to isolate) on CentOS using HexStr() formatting a custom signetchallenge to display in the rpcconsole.

💬 cedwies commented on pull request "tests: cover abortrescan() in-flight True path with dynamic-tail retry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33131#discussion_r2386173084)
Thank you for checking in. I lost focus of this PR, but I am still thinking about how to design this test without a race condition. I'll try to find a solution within the next days, or else I am going to close this PR.

💬 RandyMcMillan commented on pull request "rpcconsole: display signet challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/896#issuecomment-3343837654)
rebase on top of gui/master

temporarily cherry-pick PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838 to fix an issue.

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: check if file or directory already exists for ${HOME}/.bitcoin instead of failing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486#discussion_r2386185640)
Updated now in [3f5596f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486/commits/3f5596fd137b8833501ac4bd5ab9793f9485c9da)

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: check if file or directory already exists for ${HOME}/.bitcoin instead of failing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486#discussion_r2386185788)
I removed the explanation in [3f5596f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33486/commits/3f5596fd137b8833501ac4bd5ab9793f9485c9da) now we can have this explanation here since it is more accurate

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: documented shasum gathering command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#discussion_r2386223955)
Please keep `uname -m`, as different build platforms may produce different output, which could lead to cross-platform non-reproducibility:

```
uname -m && ...
```

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: documented shasum gathering command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#discussion_r2386224466)
`$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)` won't work for tags. However, that's not the case for pull requests.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: rpc: fix case typo in `finalizepsbt` help (final_scriptwitness)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33484)

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "ci: use latest versions of lint deps"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33487)
Some of the versions used here are > 2 years old. i.e `mypy`. Use the latest avilable versions, except for LIEF, which is generally changed with Guix.

Side note. I can't remember the last time one of these tools (mypy, ruff, vulture) actually caught an issue in the lint job.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: rpc: fix case typo in `finalizepsbt` help (final_scriptwitness)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33484#issuecomment-3344323996)
Backported to 30.x in #33473.

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "cmake: exclude secp256k1 from all"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33390)
Instead of setting the EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL target property, pass EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL to `add_subdirectory()`.

This has the following advanteges:

* It is shorter (obviously).
* Target properties are set only in the `CMakeLists.txt` file that defines the target.
* Install rules defined in the subdirectory are excluded as well. This is what we want, because secp256k1 is linked statically.

💬 winterrdog commented on pull request "Avoid file overwriting in fallback `AllocateFileRange` implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33164#discussion_r2386399909)
@cedwies @luke-jr
since this part of the code's gonna be run on POSIX systems only, i think trying out the `lseek()` system call can be of help. it is reliable on large files, sparse file aware and portable across Unix systems since it is a POSIX-standard syscall.

what do you think of this?