💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Properly include $FILE_ENV in DEPENDS_HASH":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33581#issuecomment-3397985761)
Backported to `29.x` in #33611.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Version 30 `-datadir=` not working":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33608#issuecomment-3397996231)
> it should have been front and center in the email, and on the download page.

I am not sure about modifying the download page for a one-off release note snippet. The release notes mention it and the release notes are in the email and on the website.

In any case, it is not possible to go back in time and announce it differently, so I'd say this issue should be closed.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Version 30 `-datadir=` not working"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33608)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Version 30 `-datadir=` not working":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33608#issuecomment-3397998511)
Closing for now, but discussion can continue. Also, this issue can be re-opened, when there is need.

📝 Crypt-iQ opened a pull request: "test: change log rate limit version gate from 299900 to 289900"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33612)
In the case a user on 29.x runs the functional tests and is confused why logs are rate limited in output.

See discussion here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33225#discussion_r2287838255

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: Get rid of undocumented `BITCOIN_GENBUILD_NO_GIT` environment variable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32220#issuecomment-3398016074)
Rebased to refresh the CI.

💬 Waytoogo commented on issue "Version 30 `-datadir=` not working":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33608#issuecomment-3398016529)
> Closing for now, but discussion can continue. Also, this issue can be re-opened, when there is need.

I'm sorry for all the fuss, but this was very confusing for me. Thank you for your help.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: Improve error message on multiwallet cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#issuecomment-3398037313)
> > > Removed validation commit which I'll added in a separate PR as [#26990 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#issuecomment-2354091658) by @jonatack.
> >
> >
> > Does this exist?
>
> So, this was the 2nd commit [3d63fc9](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3d63fc976d616436d64335b15a918ffba1883b9a) ...
>
> ... other 2 validations...
> - (a) no params starting with slash "-" will be accepted after a cli-command...
> - (b) duplication of cli-command (and o
...

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "miner: empty mempool special case for waitNext()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33566#issuecomment-3398044812)
Concept ACK. this is a subtle bug which would result in an infinite loop.

But allow me to propose a more elegant and modern solution: c23a65414f239c0d867d13f1be02a232096c1f9d

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: change log rate limit version gate from 299900 to 289900":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33612#issuecomment-3398044892)
ACK [45dda1b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33612/commits/45dda1b6c202c77622ad9519765efa7df9b8629e)

pretty straightforward and according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33225#discussion_r2423464895 seems like we can still open to master and backport this change

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#issuecomment-3398073492)
Haven't read the latest comments yet (will do soon), but I’ve been working on an overhaul of the approach this weekend. I got enlightened after last week’s review.

The latest code on Signet, syncing the block filter index up to block height 240593 on a MacBook M1 Pro, running on an SSD (following the testing steps in the PR description). Results:

Master branch (64a7c7cbb975cb3c3f25a3f784779f32cd95ebaa) sync time: ~50 minutes.
Current PR (f130332) sync time: ~5 minutes (with 5 worker threa
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[28.x] Backport & finalise 28.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33613)
Backports:
* #33581

Plus the changes to finalise `v28.3`

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Properly include $FILE_ENV in DEPENDS_HASH":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33581#issuecomment-3398132819)
Backported to `28.x` in #33613.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: fix buildx gha cache authentication on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33508#issuecomment-3398197163)
@maflcko hopefully this should sort it: https://github.com/m3dwards/bitcoin-core-with-ci/commit/5131564636ae971fb1ab68aeb980824af432fdf4

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "miner: empty mempool special case for waitNext()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33566#issuecomment-3398246786)
Great idea, I integrated @Raimo33's approach.

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "miner: fix empty mempool case for waitNext()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33566#issuecomment-3398250482)
> Great idea, I integrated @Raimo33's approach.

please add me as co-author or cherry-pick my commit

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Bugfix: Only use git for build info if the repository is actually the right one":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32217#discussion_r2426835503)
This comment is still unaddressed.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Bugfix: Only use git for build info if the repository is actually the right one":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32217#issuecomment-3398257517)
> Also seems like the obvious time to document `BITCOIN_GENBUILD_NO_GIT` (#31999)

This is still unaddressed.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "miner: fix empty mempool case for waitNext()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33566#issuecomment-3398259043)
@Raimo33 I did, see `Co-authored-by` in commit message.

📝 waketraindev opened a pull request: "rpc, test: fix "internal" label check in importdescriptors and extend test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33614)

Fixes a logic issue in `ProcessDescriptorImport()` where descriptors with `"internal": false` and a label were incorrectly rejected.
The check now uses `internal.value_or(false)` so labels are only disallowed when `internal` is `true`.

Tests updated to cover both cases