💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update libmultiprocess subtree in 30.x branch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33519#issuecomment-3409877108)
Added to `30.x` rel notes in #33609.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "multiprocess: Fix high overhead from message logging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33517#issuecomment-3409878268)
Backported to `30.x` in #33609.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: detect outbound internet traffic generated while running tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31349#issuecomment-3409891919)
`c652deb3c1...6e0f3a4a58`: rebase due to conflicts

> Not sure why I get this failure ...

It is making requests to the DNS server at `1111:1111::1.53`, trying to resolve `x9.dummySeed.invalid.`

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#pullrequestreview-3343599681)
Code review ACK f53dbbc5057b6f676db4be9bc720898149f293fc. Just applied comment & test suggestions since last review

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2434995750)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2434307116

> Without -named [...]

Thanks for pointing out different error messages with and without `-named`. I do feel like it would be good to have more consistent error messages but I think requiring exact same messages in `-named` and `-nonamed` cases is probably setting bar a little too high, because the way arguments are interpreted in these modes is quite different. As long as the error messages clearly describe the probl
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2434995447)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2434287898

> While passing the same to getrawchangeaddress shows

Thanks for pointing this out, and see also other reply to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2434307116 about goal of having more consistent error messages.

It seems to me PR is improving behavior of the `getnewaddress` method while leaving behavior of the `getrawchangeaddress` method unchanged. Errors in both cases seem pretty helpful and
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "[30.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33609#issuecomment-3409990384)
It could make sense to backport #33229 too, I think. It does have the [Needs backport (30.x)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs%20backport%20(30.x)%22) label, but doesn't appear by default because it is closed. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: [move-only] binary utils to utils.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33633#issuecomment-3409995075)
lgtm ACK fa75ef4328f638221bcf85fcbefa885122084622

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: " ci: Only write docker build images to Cirrus cache "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33639)
The `DOCKER_BUILD_CACHE_ARG` env var holds the options on how to use cache providers. Storing the image layers is useful for the Cirrus cache provider, because it offers 10GB per runner (https://cirrus-runners.app/setup/#speeding-up-the-cache). The cached image layers can help to avoid issues when the upstream package manager infra (apt native, apt llvm, pip, apk, git clone, ...) has outages or network issues.

However, on the GitHub Actions cache provider, a *total* cache of 10GB is offered f
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "ci: Build ci_native_base image layer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33620)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Build ci_native_base image layer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33620#issuecomment-3410066006)
> With the 10GB limit, it seems better to use if for ccache+depends than to cache installed packages?

Done that in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33639

For reference, we are probably better off using the limited cache for ccache, as there are several tasks, which run out of the 500MB ccache: (musl, and the previous_releases one)

```
# du -sh /var/lib/containers/storage/volumes/ci_native_*_ccache/
886M /var/lib/containers/storage/volumes/ci_native_alpine_musl_ccache/
293M /va
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "chore: remove repetitive word in src/leveldb/README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33638#issuecomment-3410171836)
Pushed this and other changes into https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/pull/57.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update secp256k1 subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33625#issuecomment-3410179559)
cc @real-or-random @jonasnick

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update GitHub Action to github-script@v8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33634#issuecomment-3410216142)
cc @willcl-ark

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[28.x] Backport & finalise 28.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33613)

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Compilation failure with Clang SNAPSHOT":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33539#issuecomment-3410223729)
> [llvm/llvm-project#163057](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/163057)

The snapshot containing the fix builds successfully: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin-core-nightly/actions/runs/18549098308.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update GitHub Action to github-script@v8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33634#issuecomment-3410263934)
Not sure there is any need to bump this myself. I think we should probably adopt a ~ policy to only bump when:

- a version is nearing End of Life
- we want a new feature from a new version
- other unknown reason arises

Its hard to say whether "randomly bumping to new versions" is more or less likely to cause issues than sticking around on older versions, and if we need to update eventually then perhaps the difference is exactly nothing. But I don't see a compelling reason to do this now.
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Update GitHub Action to github-script@v8"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33634)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update GitHub Action to github-script@v8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33634#issuecomment-3410266442)
Closing for now.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Split file path handling out of -asmap option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3410302383)
> Note: There is an alternative change that leaves the behavior of `-asmap` as is but makes slight improvements and adds better documentation: #33632 Please indicate with your conceptual review which option you prefer, thanks!

IMO #33631 and #33632 are both reasonable ways of patching up a confusing UI and making it slightly better, and either would be an improvement over current behavior.

But neither of these PRs seem to solve the fundamental problem here: that if a user goes through the
...