💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Add patch for Windows11Style plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33906#issuecomment-3552247066)
> Can we just update Qt?
Updating Qt would require raising the minimum GCC version for Windows cross-compilation to [13.1](https://doc.qt.io/qt-6.8/supported-platforms.html#windows). Are we comfortable with that?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33906#issuecomment-3552247066)
> Can we just update Qt?
Updating Qt would require raising the minimum GCC version for Windows cross-compilation to [13.1](https://doc.qt.io/qt-6.8/supported-platforms.html#windows). Are we comfortable with that?
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662001)
I agree, but going to leave that from this PR for now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662001)
I agree, but going to leave that from this PR for now.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662319)
Taken in 75155c073d7
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662319)
Taken in 75155c073d7
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662701)
Taken in 75155c073d7
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662701)
Taken in 75155c073d7
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662993)
Taken in 75155c073d7
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541662993)
Taken in 75155c073d7
👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#pullrequestreview-3482268948)
re-ACK 7dd714ae71fd18eda82ab4b43d4cecc047b87a2d.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#pullrequestreview-3482268948)
re-ACK 7dd714ae71fd18eda82ab4b43d4cecc047b87a2d.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Document compiler configuration for native depends packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541664757)
Reolving this based on wording in 75155c073d7.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33902#discussion_r2541664757)
Reolving this based on wording in 75155c073d7.
💬 janb84 commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#issuecomment-3552252907)
> Also, the title seems the wrong place to list all the shortcomings of each CI task. For example, the win-cross does not build the gui tests, should it say 'no-gui-tests'? Or the arm test has `-Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized`, so should the title say 'no-error-uninit'? Some tasks do not have `CI_LIMIT_STACK_SIZE` set, some tasks don't run the previous releases, or the extended functional tests, some have the gui disabled, no task is using gcc-15, ...
>
> Maybe it makes sense to document thi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#issuecomment-3552252907)
> Also, the title seems the wrong place to list all the shortcomings of each CI task. For example, the win-cross does not build the gui tests, should it say 'no-gui-tests'? Or the arm test has `-Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized`, so should the title say 'no-error-uninit'? Some tasks do not have `CI_LIMIT_STACK_SIZE` set, some tasks don't run the previous releases, or the extended functional tests, some have the gui disabled, no task is using gcc-15, ...
>
> Maybe it makes sense to document thi
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "init: Split file path handling out of -asmap option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3552262328)
Is this still relevant, given you've ACK'd #33770?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3552262328)
Is this still relevant, given you've ACK'd #33770?
💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541695322)
is this the reason for the limitation? or are there other reasons?
if its just this couldn't we just get how many commits are in this branch and use it here?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541695322)
is this the reason for the limitation? or are there other reasons?
if its just this couldn't we just get how many commits are in this branch and use it here?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2541710794)
i don't think this heuristic makes sense, because it is already incomplete with the merge of this pull, and it is unclear how to even maintain it going forward. I don't think it is a good use of time to think about every single named argument, whether it can be a string, and whether the string may theoretically contain a `=`.
It would be better to just fully list all named args names in the client. Then, just check if the string starts with the named arg name. If yes, it is a named arg. If not,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2541710794)
i don't think this heuristic makes sense, because it is already incomplete with the merge of this pull, and it is unclear how to even maintain it going forward. I don't think it is a good use of time to think about every single named argument, whether it can be a string, and whether the string may theoretically contain a `=`.
It would be better to just fully list all named args names in the client. Then, just check if the string starts with the named arg name. If yes, it is a named arg. If not,
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add `INSTALL.md` to Linux release tarballs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#discussion_r2541711810)
xcb & xkb libs can be dropped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#discussion_r2541711810)
xcb & xkb libs can be dropped.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add `INSTALL.md` to Linux release tarballs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#discussion_r2541716526)
I'm not sure we need to link to Qt docs here, given it's listing ~ 25 different things, of which only 2-3 are relevant to our binaries.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#discussion_r2541716526)
I'm not sure we need to link to Qt docs here, given it's listing ~ 25 different things, of which only 2-3 are relevant to our binaries.
💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add `-alertnotify` test for large work invalid chain warning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33893#issuecomment-3552330703)
In addition to `feature_bip68_sequence.py`, it seems that the functional tests `feature_coinstatsindex.py`, `feature_pruning.py` and `mempool_reorg.py` hit this code-path as well (tested experimentally by putting an `assert(false)` into the branch to provoke a crash), most likely all of them in the course of an `invalidateblock` call, though I didn't check in detail. However, none of these use the `-alertnotify` option, so the function `AlertNotify` returns early in those cases.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33893#issuecomment-3552330703)
In addition to `feature_bip68_sequence.py`, it seems that the functional tests `feature_coinstatsindex.py`, `feature_pruning.py` and `mempool_reorg.py` hit this code-path as well (tested experimentally by putting an `assert(false)` into the branch to provoke a crash), most likely all of them in the course of an `invalidateblock` call, though I didn't check in detail. However, none of these use the `-alertnotify` option, so the function `AlertNotify` returns early in those cases.
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541732485)
See the explanation above:
> timeout-minutes: 360 # Use maximum time, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idtimeout-minutes. Assuming a worst case time of 1 hour per commit, this leads to a --max-count=6 below.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541732485)
See the explanation above:
> timeout-minutes: 360 # Use maximum time, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idtimeout-minutes. Assuming a worst case time of 1 hour per commit, this leads to a --max-count=6 below.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add `INSTALL.md` to Linux release tarballs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#issuecomment-3552345830)
Should #29977 be closed, if we add these docs? Is 20.04 considered unsupported?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33451#issuecomment-3552345830)
Should #29977 be closed, if we add these docs? Is 20.04 considered unsupported?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541763940)
The last commit isn't checked either. Maybe 'test some mid commits'
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541763940)
The last commit isn't checked either. Maybe 'test some mid commits'
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541775452)
But that's just an optimization, since that's checked elsewhere, no need to point it out here, it's not part of reducing "false sense of security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541775452)
But that's just an optimization, since that's checked elsewhere, no need to point it out here, it's not part of reducing "false sense of security"
💬 fanquake commented on issue "depends: Freetype and xcbproto version in depends are too new":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29977#issuecomment-3552413548)
Note that libxkb, libxcb, and xcb-proto are now all statically linked, after #33537.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29977#issuecomment-3552413548)
Note that libxkb, libxcb, and xcb-proto are now all statically linked, after #33537.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Make the max number of commits tested explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541787905)
Someone could introduce an inverse silent merge conflict, so in theory that is a "false sense of security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33909#discussion_r2541787905)
Someone could introduce an inverse silent merge conflict, so in theory that is a "false sense of security"