⚠️ hebasto opened an issue: "Implicit conversion from `fs::path` to `std::string` when constructing file streams"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33545)
When building with libc++ that has LWG 3430 [implemented](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4761e74a276ee1f38596f4849daa9d633929f2ae), constructing `std::ifstream` or `std::ofstream` from an `fs::path` object triggers its implicit conversion to `std::string`. This behavior has been undesirable ever since `fs::path` was introduced. See, for example: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a33bd767a37dccf39a094d03c2f62ea81633410f/src/util/fs.h#L54-L55

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Implicit conversion from `fs::path` to `std::string` when constructing file streams":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33545#issuecomment-3369553341)
cc @ryanofsky

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Add coins (UTXOs) tab and makes it view-only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/898#issuecomment-3369556757)
cc @achow101 @Sjors

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "Clear out space on centos job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33514#pullrequestreview-3302631883)
<details>
<summary>tACK 014b9f6268390b78e66e1be24813d3f069588442</summary>

```
Space freed: 22GB (23654664KB)
```

<img width="617" height="498" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/817d214b-4f93-4590-9f66-b36b12477b15" />

https://github.com/pablomartin4btc/bitcoin/actions/runs/18266112018/job/52000630402

</details>

It happened to me a couple of days ago: https://github.com/pablomartin4btc/bitcoin/actions/runs/18234273673/job/51924700571

📝 theStack opened a pull request: "test: add functional test for `TestShell` (matching doc example)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33546)
This PR adds a functional framework test for the `TestShell` class. The primary motivation for this is to avoid that the interactive instructions for the interactive Python shell in `test-shell.md` get outdated or broken without noticing, a problem we had already several times in the past (see #26520, #27906, #31415). Having a copy is still not perfect, as docs and functional test have to be kept in sync, but I don't expect this to be a problem in practice, assuming the hint in the functional te
...

💬 mikekelly commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370003020)
Here's the offending lines

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/30.x/src/rpc/rawtransaction_util.cpp#L109-L111

💬 maflcko commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370064859)
> ### Is there an existing issue for this?
>
> * [x] I have searched the existing issues

See #32478?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add functional test for `TestShell` (matching doc example)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33546#issuecomment-3370068826)
Looks like the new test times out in CI?

💬 mikekelly commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370099415)
@maflcko - apologies. Out of interest, is it a hard rule that RPC changes like this must follow a release later? Seems strange to relax standardness but not give users a straightforward way to make use of it

✅ mikekelly closed an issue: "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Implicit conversion from `fs::path` to `std::string` when constructing file streams":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33545#issuecomment-3370123776)
I guess this means any fs::path would have to be explicitly cast to a std::fs::path, which seems fine to do. I guess you are asking how to deal with the fs linter?

💬 apogio commented on pull request "Add coins (UTXOs) tab and makes it view-only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/898#issuecomment-3370131703)
So, I've got 3 failed pipeline checks. I'll need to check them.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370140629)
With policy changes, the expectation is that one release is needed to upgrade a sufficient portion of the network, until the wallet and RPC can offer them as features. Otherwise, users may not be able to propagate such transactions, or only intermittently.

⚠️ maflcko reopened an issue: "ARM Windows build and release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31388)
This was brought up recently:

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5517601.0
* https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e5b06aaa-1fe9-4c8f-a0ea-db10f8a7e48cn%40googlegroups.com

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ARM Windows build and release":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31388#issuecomment-3370158680)
I guess we could vendor the toolchain in guix ourselves, so re-opening for now. Though, I am not sure if we should vendor it ourselves.

💬 mikekelly commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370161045)
@maflcko genuine question - why couldn't the policy be to accommodate policy changes in the same release but with a warning to users about potential propagation issues (and then remove it in the next release)?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33544#issuecomment-3370168020)
Yeah, it is always a bit of a case-by-case decision. However, I don't think a pull request in a reviewable state exists to implement this? So nothing can be merged into 31.x, nor 30.x anyway.

💬 BenWestgate commented on pull request "doc: update multisig tutorial to use multipath descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33286#discussion_r2405153857)
I updated the note with your feedback and implemented the comment nit in the test. Does this address the confusion?

> Note that previously at least two descriptors were usually used, one for external derivation paths and one for internal ones. Since https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838 this redundancy has been eliminated by a multipath descriptor with <code><0;1></code> at the [BIP-44](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#change) change level expanding to e
...

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "Clear out space on centos job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33514#pullrequestreview-3303220896)
ACK 014b9f6268390b78e66e1be24813d3f069588442

Was curious if it would take less time to switch to the *stream10-minimal container*, but it seems to come with the same amount of */usr/local/lib/android* files, taking over 3min to remove regardless (https://github.com/hodlinator/bitcoin/actions/runs/18273895919/job/52021497688#step:6:249).

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "Clear out space on centos job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33514#discussion_r2405218839)
nit: Remove leftovers, unless they serve a purpose?
```suggestion
freeup-space: ${{ needs.runners.outputs.provider == 'gha' }} # Only needed on hosted GH runners (forks)
```