💬 maflcko commented on issue "guix build fails on RISC-V due to python-py-cpuinfo test failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33873#issuecomment-3542218159)
Yeah, if it is pulled in through LIEF, it could make sense to strip the unmaintained dependency from LIEF upstream.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Enable experimental kernel stuff in most CI tasks via `dev-mode`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33824#discussion_r2534374440)
I think it couldn't be run in wine. Could make sense to at least build it. Should I do it here, or in a follow-up?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Enable experimental kernel stuff in most CI tasks via `dev-mode`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33824#discussion_r2534381180)
oh wait, I already removed it here in this commit 6666980e8653d98ef556f71a3e6907d3deda7147, it is also mentioned in the commit message.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: update xcb-util packages to latest versions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33851#issuecomment-3542279628)
Guix Build:
```bash
70818d2b6cce3f70f1b558049b7d24e3e0d688b51b9ec4257f9e21b4167b1753 guix-build-7d2352b6757e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
fe7f75313ba0ad242e42b2fec0918d4ed21b5b466fc9c373b16496151a6bbe96 guix-build-7d2352b6757e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7d2352b6757e-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4e3226f11a59d5d417d03296a8defbc43fc169b5eb625a3f234fa4edfb5df303 guix-build-7d2352b6757e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7d2352b6757e-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
9809d8794969a4a7
...

💬 roconnor-blockstream commented on issue "Standardness policy rules for legacy Multisig script is incoherent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33882#issuecomment-3542353380)
> we should make it easy to spend bare multisigs with embedded data, or with hybrid pubkeys

Just to be clear, we cannot allow hybrid pubkeys to be processed by `CHECKMULTISIG` without undermining the purpose of the hybrid pubkey ban. (However we can allow hybrid pubkeys that are unprocessed by `CHECKMULTISIG`.)

My understanding of the hybrid pubkey ban is that it is in place in case we wish to, one day, introduce a soft-fork that would allow implementations of Bitcoin Core to use a normal ECD
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "doc: Improve CI docs on env and qemu-user-static":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33887#discussion_r2534494637)
Thanks! Pushed new version which is hopefully slightly more accurate.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534425987)
renamed.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534443997)
Done.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534465728)
we would probably still need the context string to differentiate between the initial `BlockWorkers()` calls vs the final result `WaitFor`. Should re-check if `BOOST_REQUIRE` prints the stack trace; most likely it doesn't and that was the reason behind my past-self added the context string.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534438190)
I'm not sure about including extra dependencies on a low-level class for tiny readability improvements. But I'm not really opposed to this one, so done as suggested.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534442998)
Done as suggested.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534447295)
Done as suggested.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534473189)
Instead of doing it for all the test cases, added another case that exercises the contention.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534474010)
Done as suggested.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534476766)
Done as suggested.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2534496697)
> do we need a vector here of can we just consume whatever we just submitted?

Consuming right away would wait for the task to be executed; we want to exercise some concurrency too.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: Add Windows + UCRT jobs for cross-compiling and native testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33764#issuecomment-3542456588)
Not sure I understand the dependence on #33775?

CI is using it's own build, not the guix build right? Also MinGW brings it's own GCC doesn't it?

💬 plebhash commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#issuecomment-3542515441)
> It's true that you need txdata anyway, but you don't need it immediately. You need it when the pool asks using the RequestTransactionData message.

not really, we also need it for `NewTemplate.merkle_path`

that would be true if there were a `getMerklePath()` method for a given template, in which case we'd be able to do `getHeader()` + `getCoinbase()` + `getMerklePath()`

but with the current interface, `getBlock()` is the only way we can properly build a `NewTemplate` message

💬 frankomosh commented on pull request "net: Filter addrman during address selection via AddrPolicy to avoid underfill":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33663#discussion_r2534658896)
Thanks

💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "doc: Improve CI docs on env and qemu-user-static":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33887#issuecomment-3542674031)
Concept ACK

nit: Please squash the commits per the contributing guidelines: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits

Both commits touch `ci/README.md` and cover the same scope.