🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: Teach AutoFile how to XOR"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28060)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#issuecomment-1660581208)
Thank you for the reviews @Sjors and @MarcoFalke,

Updated 0280dc44d227ae34e8fcbb708833bfe9d66c7b5f -> e8a3a0a0d761c8544e20ffc3ee3d4c1029c44518 ([cleaveLeveldbHeaders_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/cleaveLeveldbHeaders_0) -> [cleaveLeveldbHeaders_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/cleaveLeveldbHeaders_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/cleaveLeveldbHeaders_0..cleaveLeveldbHeaders_1))
* Addressed @MarcoFalke's [comment](https://github.c
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#discussion_r1280829946)
Thank you, this is much simpler indeed.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#discussion_r1280830109)
I think we are in the `CDBWrapper::` scope here.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1280831815)
:+1:

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test doc: tests `acceptstalefeeestimates` option is only supported on regtest chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#discussion_r1280838572)
I deleted the comment.
Thank you

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#issuecomment-1660598041)
> Needs rebase, if still relevant

thanks, fixed!

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Improve display address handling for external signer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313#issuecomment-1660599083)
Rebased and switched to `Result<void>`.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#issuecomment-1660604025)
re-ACK e8a3a0a0d761c8544e20ffc3ee3d4c1029c44518 🗞

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK e8a3a0a0d761c8544e2
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Clarify that -fstack-reuse=all bugs exist on all versions of GCC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28105#issuecomment-1660609740)
I see the commentary on the GCC bug, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348#c30, that someone claims the issue still exists, but the test-case no-longer works. Should we add a note to our test case to note that it's no-longer useful post GCC 12?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: Replace std::filesystem with util/fs.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28076#issuecomment-1660615210)
ACK fa8d99d8932df08320f1bfb4e8f1d4b4169466fd (first commit)

I have no issues with Rust, or using it in the CI; we already do in other CIs in the Bitcoin Core project. Saying that, I'm not sure if we want to introduce a 4th way to do linting in this repo (yet). One potential alternative, if we go further down the clang-tidy route, is the `<filesystem>` linter here: https://github.com/fanquake/bitcoin/commits/integrate_thecharlatan_filesystem, put together by @TheCharlatan.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "p2p_getaddr_caching.py failure in TSan CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28133)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Clarify that -fstack-reuse=all bugs exist on all versions of GCC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28105#issuecomment-1660617362)
It may be better to replace it with one that still reproduces. Though, there is an array of at least 5 of those bugs, presumably all due to the same underlying GCC bug. Instead of constantly updating the test case to the latest one that still reproduces, maybe just remove the outdated test case?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_getaddr_caching.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28144)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1280857120)
This used to be part of the default build, but now needs to be run manually: `make bitcoin-tidy-tests`

It's probably not a bad idea to have them run by c-i, that way we can see that they're actually catching something.

📝 jonatack converted_to_draft a pull request: "test: update tool_wallet coverage for unexpected writes to wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28116)
PR #15687 added test coverage in `test/functional/tool_wallet.py` to reproduce unexpected writes to the wallet file, as described in issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15608:

- wallet tool info unexpectedly writes to the wallet file if the wallet file permissions are read/write
- wallet tool info raises if the wallet file permissions are read-only

Update these tests/docs for a few changes since #15687:

- the addition of descriptor wallets
- the CI migration away from Appv
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#issuecomment-1660642848)
Thank you for looking into this! I will address trivial stuff/comments first and then will _try_ to address the other concerns in chronological order.

I am open to exploring in more detail the option of not putting the transaction in the mempool. I considered this in the beginning but I got the impression that this is going to be more complicated. Anyway I want to first try to address all concerns or, if not possible, get convinced that putting the transaction in the mempool is non-workable.
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1660646771)
I'm a little confused that there are no `NOLINT`s hooked up, and yet c-i is still passing. Beyond the one that @MarcoFalke pointed out above, surely more are still needed right?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1280872672)
I intend to add a bunch of docs as a follow-up. I'll address these comments then as well.