🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "Get rid of shutdown.cpp/shutdown.h, use SignalInterrupt directly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28051#pullrequestreview-1779599067)
ACK 6db04be102807ee0120981a9b8de62a55439dabb 👗

<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: ACK 6db04be102807ee0120981a9b8
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Get rid of shutdown.cpp/shutdown.h, use SignalInterrupt directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28051#discussion_r1425329431)
in 73133c36aa: Just to note another thing: Now that the interrupt inside the NodeContext is unset, unit tests can not use it and must use the m_interrupt

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Get rid of shutdown.cpp/shutdown.h, use SignalInterrupt directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28051#discussion_r1425340275)
Nit in the last commit: Shouldn't new node code be in the node namespace? Otherwise it will have to be touched again when it is moved into the node namespace later?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#issuecomment-1853978983)
Would this resolve the problem?

<details>
<summary>[patch] update g_initial_block_download_completed periodically based on our tip age</summary>

```diff
diff --git i/src/net_processing.cpp w/src/net_processing.cpp
index df54a62f28..ec9bbff8f2 100644
--- i/src/net_processing.cpp
+++ w/src/net_processing.cpp
@@ -2045,13 +2045,12 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::NewPoWValidBlock(const CBlockIndex *pindex, const std::sha
* Update our best height and announce any block hashes which weren't pre
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Bump minimum required Boost version due to migration to C++20"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29066)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: GCC 10.5 fails to compile `test_bitcoin` using Boost.Test 1.71"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29063)

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "msvc: Fix `test\config.ini` content"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29075)
Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29074.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Replace Boost.Process with cpp-subprocess":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981#issuecomment-1854029824)
Tested on Ubuntu 23.10.

This slightly changes the way strings are escaped, please use this:

```diff
--- a/src/external_signer.cpp
+++ b/src/external_signer.cpp
@@ -60,43 +60,43 @@ bool ExternalSigner::Enumerate(const std::string& command, std::vector<ExternalS
return true;
}

UniValue ExternalSigner::DisplayAddress(const std::string& descriptor) const
{
- return RunCommandParseJSON(m_command + " --fingerprint " + m_fingerprint + NetworkArg() + " displayaddress --desc \
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "sync: introduce a thread-safe generic container and use it to remove a bunch of "GlobalMutex"es":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25390#issuecomment-1854032522)
`92a444d0d7...f3489638dc`: rebase due to conflicts

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Replace non-standard CLZ builtins with c++20's bit_width":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29057#issuecomment-1854044883)
I don't think the benchmarks will come. I guess the machine has been preempted by AWS? @aureleoules

💬 maflcko commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1854061826)
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=d5ca4d4fd713a9f7e17e074a1e37dda99bbb09fc

👍 BrandonOdiwuor approved a pull request: "test: add TestNode wait_until helper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29070#pullrequestreview-1779854277)
Code review ACK bf0f7dbec6590a54ec890e7a2ca5d85427995334

Looks good to me

👋 brunoerg's pull request is ready for review: "fuzz: coinselection, improve `min_viable_change`/`change_output_size`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28372)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: coinselection, improve `min_viable_change`/`change_output_size`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28372#issuecomment-1854095552)
Rebased

💬 fanquake commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1854097278)
Guess it's time to guix pull and find the next bug.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#pullrequestreview-1779669082)
Concept ACK

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1425373263)
A function called `AreInputsStandard` that returns a falsy value if inputs are standard is counterintuitive. Would suggest renaming to e.g. `HasNonStandardInput`.

<details>
<summary>git diff on 6ffb9569b7</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/src/bench/ccoins_caching.cpp b/src/bench/ccoins_caching.cpp
index c677fb1c16..9a31cecd7a 100644
--- a/src/bench/ccoins_caching.cpp
+++ b/src/bench/ccoins_caching.cpp
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static void CCoinsCaching(benchmark::Bench& bench)
// Benchmar
...

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1425375934)
nit: no need for `.has_value()`, idiomatic enough as is imo (here and in a bunch of other places)
```suggestion
BOOST_CHECK(!::AreInputsStandard(CTransaction(txTo), coins));
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1425377178)
Since we've validated `has_value()` just above, can just derefence safely for conciseness:

```suggestion
return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_INPUTS_NOT_STANDARD, inputs_standardness_result->reason, inputs_standardness_result->debug);
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1425431635)
nit: this is the reason for a single input
```suggestion
struct NonStandardInputReason {
```