🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Fix potential network stalling bug"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27981)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#issuecomment-1682182628)
> Any reason to not run this on a self-hosted worker through cirrus?

Self-hosted workers have downsides. For example, they need to be set-up for every fork in a different org, before the CI can be run. But GHA also has downsides. For example, tasks can not be re-run by authors, unless they (force-)push.

And the qml repo needs GHA artefacts?

My suggestion for now would be to use Cirrus self-hosted workers. The qml repo can cherry-pick this pull request in the meantime, until the cache is
...

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#issuecomment-1682184753)
> My suggestion for now would be to use Cirrus self-hosted workers. The qml repo can cherry-pick this pull request in the meantime, until the cache issue is fixed one way or another.

Sounds good to me. I don't think we should have a dependency on the experimental gui rewrite in this repo.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#issuecomment-1682191325)
I agree. The requirements of a separate (experimental) repository are not really our concern when making CI infrastructure decisions.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Intermittent failure in mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26962)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fix intermittent issue in mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27941)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Fix issues in ZMQ error handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28029#issuecomment-1682204582)
> Behaves better if abnormal issues occur

Can you elaborate at all? I assume this is something that occured in production?

cc @instagibbs. Might be interested in reviewing?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bugfix: Skip tests for tools not being built":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23027#issuecomment-1682205873)
> May want to close this, given the ongoing cmake transition obsoletes it either way?

Think I agree. If the (asked-for) review/questions are addressed, can still be re-opened.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Bugfix: Skip tests for tools not being built"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23027)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bugfix: net_processing: Restore "Already requested" error for FetchBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28055#issuecomment-1682209490)
@luke-jr are you going to followup with the questions, test suggestions, code-review and general feedback here?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: Refactor: Remove CI_USE_APT_INSTALL"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28278#pullrequestreview-1582523623)
ACK fa263877691a7babb08a83f5f977390a0ba64729.

nit: the commit message has lost some details.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Refactor: Remove CI_USE_APT_INSTALL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28278#issuecomment-1682215978)
> nit: the commit message has lost some details.

I will copy-paste the pull request description if I have to push again

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: call `LookupSubNet` before calling `Ban` with a subnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27935#issuecomment-1682218790)
I'm investigating it.

📝 brunoerg converted_to_draft a pull request: "fuzz: call `LookupSubNet` before calling `Ban` with a subnet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27935)
Fixes #27924

When using `setban` RPC, if we pass a subnet, it will call `LookupSubnet`. So, to make it more realistic, when calling `Ban` with a subnet we could also call `LookupSubNet` before. It would fix any possible discrepancy between the banned subnet and the values loaded from `BanMapFromJson`, especially in MacOS that fuzz is failing (#27924).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#issuecomment-1682222672)
I agree that UX of GitHub Actions is not perfect, unfortunately.

Closing this PR.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265)

📝 iamcarlos94 opened a pull request: "Update JSON-RPC-interface.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28283)
clarifying when the .cookie file is generated

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Update JSON-RPC-interface.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28283#issuecomment-1682237333)
lgtm, but missing the `doc:` prefix in the Github title?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1682240017)
Also, it looks like CI tasks currently need approval from a maintainer to run at all from non-members. See https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/approving-workflow-runs-from-public-forks

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Bugfix: RPC: Remove quotes from non-string oneline descriptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28123)