💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "test: addrman: check isTerrible when time is more than 10min in the future":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33533#issuecomment-3366011629)
crACK 8e47ed6906d5e381498681e2cab9f2e318597705

🤔 alexanderwiederin reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Introduce initial C header API"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#pullrequestreview-3295024865)
Have been using this API extensively. Can attest to:

- Appropriate API scope
- No symbol pollution
- Consistent naming conventions within the header
- Good ergonomics in practice
- No memory leaks or resource management issues discovered

Made some cosmetic suggestions.

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595/commits/f3ca1d65b0444097fd0e2f059a01eb5b29c950c1

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2399105059)
```suggestion
* @brief Reads the block the passed in block tree entry points to from disk and
```

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2399222152)
```
* validation objects are instantiated from it, the context is kept in memory
* for the duration of their lifetimes.
```
to align with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595/commits/43f850c1ae9a66d8de599b81d3d78e7178c12251

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2399324228)
nit: should be in the next commit I think

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2399283588)
Should be introduced earlier I believe

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2399303605)
Do we need copyright here?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "init: make `-blockmaxweight` startup option debug only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32654#discussion_r2402298073)
Done https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/v30.0-Release-Notes-Draft/3a0ad5b7901c244976eeffb034305614efb350b6

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33535)
Backports:
* #33504

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Mempool: Do not enforce TRUC checks on reorg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33504#issuecomment-3366152838)
Backported to 28.x in #33535.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add `INSTALL.md` to Linux release tarballs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#discussion_r2402371308)
`libxcb-cursor` can be removed now.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: fix macOS deployment with no translations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33482#issuecomment-3366186004)
Backported to `29.x` in #33534.

💬 Christewart commented on issue "v30.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33368#issuecomment-3366229922)
> > One thing I noticed was the getwalletinfo RPC removed the fields balance, immature_balance, and unconfirmed_balance from the RPC result in [0ec2551](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0ec255139be3745a135386e9db957fe81bc3d833). Is this worth a release note?
>
> [@Christewart](https://github.com/Christewart) it was mentioned in the PR: [#32721 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#issuecomment-3006074516). [@achow101](https://github.com/achow101) do you want to add o
...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "v30.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33368#issuecomment-3366235908)
> I can write it

You can add it here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/v30.0-Release-Notes-Draft.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[30.x] Backports & rc3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33473#issuecomment-3366258734)
ACK on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33504 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33504 changes

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: don't consider unconfirmed TRUC coins with ancestors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33528#issuecomment-3366268611)
Is this going to be backported to `30.x`?

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#issuecomment-3366274330)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534/commits/ca86f3645e1c49d9a2b95c70e475e27f2fc87d4b

I compared this to other PR's (#32766) of the "finalize format", and this has the two finalizing chagnes:
- this bumps the build version in the 29.x branch
- updates the versions in the manpages.

I compared the backport commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534/commits/6b3c1dbc5c0df4357ee7f57ac238bcdff55526af to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33482/commits/7b5261f7ef3d
...

📝 frankomosh opened a pull request: "doc: add coverage instrumentation hint to libFuzzer quickstart"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33536)
This patch shows how to enable clang source-based coverage instrumentation in the libFuzzer quickstart section. No defaults are changed, and the addition is intended to be optional.

Fixes silent "no .profraw file" confusion/error when trying to generate coverage data.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r2402470414)
Done.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r2402470769)
Done.