📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_AUTO_UPDATE` to avoid unrelated failures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080)
CI builds, which use macOS image version `20231025.2`, suffer from Homebrew update failures. For example, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/7199058794/job/19609891263.

This PR prevents such behavior.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#issuecomment-1855753635)
> > but I think I can get over it.
>
> [🎅 🎄 ](https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/fa5ba5a4252a0af16e3845ac7d0e68f9010d2a54)

It wasn't written by me, so I not setting the prefix. This makes it easier for me to (fuzzily) recall which commits were authored by me and whose weren't, by just looking at the prefix.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#issuecomment-1855754578)
I pushed a commit, but it is not a scripted-diff.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855754967)
Sorry, `HOMEBREW_NO_AUTO_UPDATE` has been replaced with `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK`, which does fix the issue. See https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/actions/runs/7208587650/job/19637838995.

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855760608)
lgtm ACK 43c3246af774bda284111056268a814477f9b256

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855763657)
re ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/43c3246af774bda284111056268a814477f9b256

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "p2p: adaptive connections services flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#pullrequestreview-1781749563)
> But the situation is somewhat convoluted in master and I am not sure this PR makes it any better. There are multiple ways to determine if we are stale.

Each of those flags have a different meaning depending on where they are located. They are not equivalent and shouldn't be used interchangeably. For instance:
The flag at the chain state manager level tells us whether the node passed IBD or not based only on the chain information.
The flag at the peers manager level tells us whether the no
...

💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1855803448)
> The problem arises when you allow *in the same market* a new kind of TX interested in another use case which doesn't mind straight up paying >95% of fees, because they're doing something else that is not transacting while conserving as many sats as possible. They quickly displace the incumbents as an invasive species, as we've seen in 2023.
>
>
>
> LN channel opening and closing TXs are also economical in that they try to move as many sats as possible while economizing the fee, therefore th
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "fuzz: Fix timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28812#issuecomment-1855815358)
[clusterfuzz-testcase-parse_univalue-4578938739097600.bin.txt](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/13673563/clusterfuzz-testcase-parse_univalue-4578938739097600.bin.txt)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: birth time update during tx scanning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28920#issuecomment-1855828142)
re-utACK 1ce45baed7dd2da3f1cb85c9c25110e5537451ae

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855888610)
> when Homebrew updates them on old macOS images.

Do we use old images?

What other side-effects could this cause due to not updating dependencies, and broken linage/other issues?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855892180)
> > when Homebrew updates them on old macOS images.
>
> Do we use old images?

The images are from GHA/Microsoft.

>
> What other side-effects could this cause due to not updating dependencies, and broken linage/other issues?

This also speeds up the build by 5 Minutes.

📝 ANIKKARAINE opened a pull request: "Test "
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/782)
<!--
*** 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:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855896100)
> Do we use old images?

The GHA chooses an image from a set of available images when setting up a new job.

It is not rare case when more than one images are available simultaneously. One of them is older than others.

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "Test "
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/782)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855901938)
What does "older" mean here? Aren't we pinned to a specific version to avoid exactly this issue?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Set `HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALLED_DEPENDENTS_CHECK` to avoid unrelated failures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29080#issuecomment-1855914085)
> > It is not rare case when more than one images are available simultaneously. One of them is older than others.
>
> What does "older" mean here? Aren't we pinned to a specific version to avoid exactly this issue?

For example,
```
##[group]Operating System
macOS
13.6
22G120
##[endgroup]
##[group]Runner Image
Image: macos-13
Version: 20231025.2
Included Software: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/macos-13/20231025.2/images/macos/macos-13-Readme.md
Image Release: http
...

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: coinselection, improve `min_viable_change`/`change_output_size`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28372#issuecomment-1855916192)
Most of them, but not all crashed on this:

```
#626233 REDUCE cov: 1289 ft: 13823 corp: 4183/16Mb lim: 66076 exec/s: 206 rss: 88Mb L: 157/65635 MS: 1 EraseBytes-
fuzz: ../../src/wallet/test/fuzz/coinselection.cpp:131: void wallet::coinselection_fuzz_target(FuzzBufferType): Assertion `result_bnb->GetChange(coin_params.m_cost_of_change, CAmount{0}) == 0' failed.
```

I think we might have misdiagnosed the issue, when we thought it could only happen when SFFO is active