💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: Where to run heavy and high-maintenance CI tasks?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33668#issuecomment-3457602512)
> As for fragile, I'm not sure I like the idea of just running fragile things less over running them regularly to get more data on why they are fragile and hopefully fixing that. That said, fixing fragile CI jobs often takes significant development effort and you can often be left wondering if it was worth the investment over disabling the job or accepting a certain amount of flake.

Ah, I think "fragile" may not have been the right word. I was not trying to refer to flaky CI tasks with non-dete
...

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2470424759)
Maybe we should relax this atomic operation so that it doesn't hide any issues by synchronizing them for us.
```suggestion
void operator()() const { m_counter.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed); }
```

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457655364)
I just queried all the DNS seeds and compared responses with BitNodes API, using `jq` to isolate the user agent:

https://gist.github.com/pinheadmz/ff6057f14aa6b9aa642db2c98f331a1a

No real anomolies to speak of, except that `seed.mainnet.achownodes.xyz` returned the **most** knots nodes 🤷

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#issuecomment-3457680787)
Friendly ping @l0rinc @maflcko @ryanofsky @willcl-ark who reviewed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31308.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#discussion_r2470457941)
nit in 30e5b015c973c1ac375e1eae6649238c6c2e2b28: This seems wrong, as there is no boost usage here?

See also my previous comment on this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32668#issuecomment-2934697644

📝 MamunC0der opened a pull request: "chore(ci): bump artifact actions to v5"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33726)
switch the artifact upload/download steps to the v5 Actions release so we pick up the Node 24 compatibility and latest fixes; proof:[ actions/upload-artifact v5.0.0 release](https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact/releases/tag/v5.0.0)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#discussion_r2470480649)
It'd also be good if that commit message was more explanatory:
> Additional header changes were required due to visibility adjustments.

Which additional changes? What visibility adjustments?

💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457712557)
> update: dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us is not returning v29 or v30 nodes, apparently

I had 9 tries and had the same experience.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "chore(ci): bump artifact actions to v5"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33726)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457730865)
Point 0 of the policy states:

> A DNS seed operating organization or person is expected to follow good host security practices, maintain control of applicable infrastructure, and not sell or transfer control of the DNS seed. Any hosting services contracted by the operator are equally expected to uphold these expectations.

Given that Luke was hacked a couple years ago, arguably his DNS seed should have been removed at that time. Furthermore, his personal website still has the following disc
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "random: clarify where the environ extern is needed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33714#discussion_r2470511528)
I'm not 100% sure that is the only place it's needed, however this has historically been unclear, and the only platform I'm aware of that definitely needs it, is macOS.

💬 m3dwards commented on issue "ci: Where to run heavy and high-maintenance CI tasks?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33668#issuecomment-3457750787)
> I was more referring to tasks that are deterministically failing, albeit with false-positive warnings, or otherwise hard-to-understand and hard-to-act-on error messages, blocking pull requests for unrelated reasons

Ah, in that case, sounds good to run them less frequently 👍

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457764011)
If this does end up being merged, then it should be backported to all supported branches.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#discussion_r2470543202)
> It'd also be good if that commit message was more explanatory:
>
> > Additional header changes were required due to visibility adjustments.
>
> Which additional changes? What visibility adjustments?

The commit message has been updated. Is it clearer now?

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#pullrequestreview-3390131426)
> > update: dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us is not returning v29 or v30 nodes, apparently
>
> I had 9 tries and had the same experience.

this type of thing has happened before: See [these](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#pullrequestreview-1797445282) [links](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149/#issuecomment-1871717493) Maybe there is a manual process for adding newer versions.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457792851)
`/contrib/seeds/README.md` should also be updated:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5a58d4915e5ce53b922961b16840709686ce9996/contrib/seeds/README.md?plain=1#L13-L20

💬 jlopp commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457823693)
ACK

It is well known that Luke has a lengthy history of poor security practices, which is compounded by his insistence that he does NOT have poor security practices. As such, the reliability and integrity of this DNS seed is highly suspect, with evidence already being shown that it is not responding quite as one would expect.

Although the operational risk to the Bitcoin network is low, the standards for operating this part of Bitcoin's infrastructure should be extremely high.

💬 Symphonic3 commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457867080)
Concept ACK

Have independently confirmed that `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us` is not returning any Core v30 nodes.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-3457885805)
<!-- begin push-68 -->
Added 1 commits 90b6a005d20ee6375beea1e685c35f265f6829c1 -> 90b81a71e49c1984120e35e060e3414fa0bb7205 ([`pr/bresult2.67`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult2.67) -> [`pr/bresult2.68`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult2.68), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/bresult2.67...pr/bresult2.68))<!-- end --> to try to fix maybe-uninitialized errors in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/18881332233/job/5
...

🤔 Eunovo reviewed a pull request: "interfaces: enable cancelling running `waitNext` calls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33676#pullrequestreview-3390164904)
Looks Good. I left some comments on tests.