💬 stringintech commented on pull request "p2p: Allow block downloads from peers without snapshot block after assumeutxo validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33604#issuecomment-3405795725)
Thanks for the links @stratospher!
FYI, calculating `pindexLastCommonBlock` is undergoing some improvements in #32180, and I will probably have to rebase onto that change. But either way, as you mentioned, it shouldn't cause any issues.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "`test_bitcoin-qt`: segfault under LTO (CMAKE_INTERPROCEDURAL_OPTIMIZATION=ON)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33548#issuecomment-3405816831)
I think this is fixed with `GCC 15.2.0), ubuntu 25.10`. I wouldn't recommend using lto with gcc-13:

* https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105469
* https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113359
* ...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Build ci_native_base image layer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33620#issuecomment-3405842839)
Hmm, then we should probably revert 6c4fe401e908cff1b67d80035b117aae15fe7db6 (or disable docker caching for GHA explicitly), because with the ~20 tasks here, and each task having a ccache size of 500MB, the GHA limit of 10GB should already be reached.

With the 10GB limit, it seems better to use if for ccache+depends than to cache installed packages?

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "doc: correct topology requirements in submitpackage helptext":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33630#discussion_r2432181432)
Text is not completely clear to me on the parents point. "or 1 transaction with its unconfirmed parents" but "Not all parents need to be present" so some of the unconfirmed parents ? all but not the confirmed parents ?

Maybe NIT;
```suggestion
"The package must consist of either: exactly 1 transaction, or 1 transaction with (some of) its unconfirmed parents. None of the parents may depend on each other. Not all parents need to be present.\n"
```

💬 optout21 commented on pull request "node: change a tx-relay on/off flag to enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33567#issuecomment-3406004322)
ACK 07a926474b5a6fa1d3d4656362a0117611f6da2f

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Switch from multilib to platform-specific toolchains":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32162#issuecomment-3406102820)
Rebased to resolve a conflict with the merged https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33549.

💬 GregTonoski commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3406112078)
There was the relevant quiz posted on the 13th of May 2025: 

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: [move-only] binary utils to utils.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33633)
Having the binary related utils sit in the test_framework.py is fine. However, they are mostly stand-alone utils, which may be used externally.

So move them to utils.py, to allow easier external use. The diff is trivial and can be reviewed via the git options `--color-moved=dimmed-zebra --color-moved-ws=ignore-all-space`.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends: Switch from multilib to platform-specific toolchains":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32162#discussion_r2432461315)
llm nit:

depend on your arch+OS you are building on. -> depend on the arch+OS you are building on. [fixes redundancy/word order: "your ... you are" is ungrammatical; use a single noun phrase "the arch+OS you are building on" or contraction "you're"]

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#pullrequestreview-3340242399)
reACK 7defbc7dc6155dabfab6a0ccddac69260d6d2d54 modulo question about remaining invalidateblock usages.



git range-diff master 0f1f02995b715a83f71b1b8fc92fa520625ec427 7defbc7dc6155dabfab6a0ccddac69260d6d2d54

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2432451468)
sync_blocks already ensures this no?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2432472005)
ping, could you respond to this @yuvicc

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2432484590)
nit: I've now forgotten the exact reason, but we're using invalidateblock here because of MTP reasons, yeah? Might want to leave a note for future reviewers wondering.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Switch from multilib to platform-specific toolchains":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32162#discussion_r2432539485)
Thanks! Fixed.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "duplicate wallet warning after closing and reopening wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20840#issuecomment-3406452511)
@hebasto should, this be moved to the GUI repo (or closed)?

✅ glozow closed an issue: "Minor Release 29.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33586)

💬 glozow commented on issue "Minor Release 29.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33586#issuecomment-3406463573)
Announcements are done
Delving https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bitcoin-core-v29-2-released/2061
Github https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v29.2
Mailing list https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/XLYTbiq25c0
Website https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/10/14/release-29.2/

I've created a new tracking issue for v29.3: #33628

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Policy: Report debug message why inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r2432583813)
Nit: this seems hard to understand

How about `"input %u P2SH redeemScript missing"`?

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "wallet: CPU use proportional to wallet transaction count when idle":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16815#issuecomment-3406473260)
@dooglas is this still an issue with the wallet in v30.0/current master?

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "Policy: Report debug message why inputs are non standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#pullrequestreview-3340451463)
utACK 9eea72d3f3647197c24329b412c7fc71895e3ea2