🚀 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.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "CI: Improve documentation around replicating CI locally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31199#issuecomment-3559299068)
Yeah, I think this can be closed for now, but I'd be excited to see new issues, if there are still questions or hard CI edges. Also, happy to review more pull requests around CI docs.

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