💬 enirox001 commented on pull request "test: Retry download in get_previous_releases.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33915#discussion_r2546940887)
nano nit: The single retry seems reasonable to start with. If CI flakiness persists after this change, increasing to 2-3 retries or adding exponential backoff can be considered

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "interface_ipc functional test failing in CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33884)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fix race condition in IPC interface block progation test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33880)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "log: avoid collecting `GetSerializeSize` data when compact block logging is disabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33738#discussion_r2546914489)
Would it be useful to print the first 5, even if there are more? E.g.
```
Reconstructed block B required tx 111
Reconstructed block B required tx 222
Reconstructed block B required tx 333
Reconstructed block B required tx 444
Reconstructed block B required tx 555 and others
```

💬 vasild commented on pull request "log: avoid collecting `GetSerializeSize` data when compact block logging is disabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33738#discussion_r2546951579)
I am missing some high level context here, but is this guaranteed to iterate over all members of `vtx_missing[]`?

I ask because down there we do iterate the full `vtx_missing[]` to derive `tx_missing_size`.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: broken CMake *flags output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31482)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "build: broken CMake *flags output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31482#issuecomment-3559202651)
Not sure making changes to address this, are worth it. Closing for now.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Fix `-pthread` flags presentation in summary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31724#issuecomment-3559205819)
I've closed #31482, as not sure making further changes to address this is worth it.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "CI: Improve documentation around replicating CI locally"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31199)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Improve CI docs on env and qemu-user-static"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33887)

⚠️ fanquake reopened an issue: "CI: Improve documentation around replicating CI locally"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31199)
I've received some feedback that replicating CI jobs locally isn't straightforward. Perhaps the documentation can be improved in this area?

@maflcko I understand you had some improvements in mind? Happy to also work on this.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "CI: Improve documentation around replicating CI locally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31199#issuecomment-3559214112)
@m3dwards can you advise if this can be closed after #33887. Or clarify in the description what else should be done.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "depends: Update Qt download link"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33918)
Replace the [unreliable](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33898#issuecomment-3559092421) https://code.qt.io with the GitHub mirror link.

Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33898.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "cmake: Fix `-pthread` flags presentation in summary"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31724)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Update Qt download link":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33918#issuecomment-3559220586)
Concept ACK

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: remove incorrect lifetimebounds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33870)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Re-enable LINT_CI_SANITY_CHECK_COMMIT_SIG"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33888)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Add patch for Windows11Style plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33906#issuecomment-3559275679)
Concept ACK on applying the patch for now.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#issuecomment-3559295948)
> Concept ACK, but a little more information in the PR description would be helpful, it's hard to parse what expected behaviour is - both from the CI, as well as from developers.

The PR description has been updated.

> Does passing iwyu become mandatory for CI? Are we duplicating CI runs or moving it to a separate iwyu job?

That isn’t the goal of this PR. Other PRs are dedicated to such changes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/337
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#issuecomment-3559297686)
Rebased.