💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1558979841)
this is also causing the sanitizer run failure

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1557310808)
```suggestion
* The senders arg should be populated in same order as individual transactions
* in the package_result argument.
*/
```

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: Lower and unify default stack size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29840#issuecomment-2046737358)
Any reason to not use half of the minimum, to more likely catch edge cases that would happen on unknown operating systems, or to more likely catch a runtime edge-case that is hit in production and not in the tests?

✅ dergoegge closed an issue: "Disallow certain message types under BIP324 v2 transport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29632)

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841)
Introduce a usage of [`std::source_location`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/source_location).
I thought this had been/was blocked on the macOS SDK.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841#issuecomment-2046766022)
-0 on this refactor. The existing code seems easier to read and is shorter?

Also, albeit not an issue here, when used as default argument the location is wrong, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56379.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841#issuecomment-2046772255)
> The existing code seems easier to read and is shorter?

Yea, I assumed this might be one pushback. I guess the project can decide if this is actually something we want to use in general. Or, if the tradeoff in verbosity is only worth it when used more globally.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841#issuecomment-2046775039)
Actually, will just come back to this after Clang 16.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: use std::source_location in fuzz/rpc.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29841#issuecomment-2046784120)
The only reasonable places to use this would be where it is used as a default argument, no? So that'd be:

* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28999#issuecomment-1850520824
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28318#discussion_r1445230410

Ref #29077 for the fix.

📝 Thales-de-Milet opened a pull request: "Create docker-image.yml"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/816)


<!--
*** seed:0708ce02816c430ab90bebbf40828693f7f5d111ba0f2b169e5b83213f0200257bd3baa4a2a47b7d115db23aa6de960d48796a3bb1565735a6d349e92abdca4e ***

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

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/Thales-de-Miles/Bitcoin/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

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

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Create docker-image.yml"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/816)

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "Continuous benchmark tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27284#issuecomment-2046870296)
I've been playing around with bencher running the `bitcoin_bench` bitcoind binary in a GH action as PoC. A sample dashboard is [here](https://bencher.dev/console/projects/0xb10c-s-bitcoin-core/perf?key=true&reports_per_page=4&branches_per_page=8&testbeds_per_page=8&benchmarks_per_page=8&reports_page=1&branches_page=1&testbeds_page=1&benchmarks_page=1&report=915c1007-33dd-4d30-b9c1-531b60af8a06&branches=0ab6caf7-716b-4a6e-8101-f2b9c891a9a2&testbeds=3c0c4d9d-b40e-4d9a-a462-2379355b0785&benchmarks=
...

💬 real-or-random commented on pull request "Add fuzz test for FSChaCha20Poly1305, AEADChacha20Poly1305":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#issuecomment-2046884446)
@theStack want to re-review this? :)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting manual connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1559054301)
Going over this PR again, shouldn't this have been a separate `if` statement instead of an `if/else` (or not a condition at all)?

Right now we are accepting expressions of the type `@ip:port` (which where already accepted before), but not expressions of the type `in/out@ip:port`.

The former will pass and default to `ConnectionDirection::In + NetPermissionFlags::Implicit`, while the latter will be rejected. That feels inconsistent

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: Allow non-standard scripts with -acceptnonstdtxn=1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28334#issuecomment-2046913270)
Note that the concept aks in the drahtbot report were mostly/entirely for the "don't do this on testnet by default" aspect of this PR which was split out into #28354.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: Make AddrFetch connections to fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26114#discussion_r1559069735)
In "net: Make AddrFetch connections to fixed seeds" dfd635bcc9b3f3615cabe115af302df33efba6a1: Perhaps it would be interesting to specify in the log it will initiate 10 AddrFetch connections instead of just saying "to fixed seeds".

📝 loselarry opened a pull request: "doc: fix some typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29842)
<!--
*** 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
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "policy: Allow non-standard scripts with -acceptnonstdtxn=1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28334#issuecomment-2046936190)
Maybe reopen as a fresh pull request, if still relevant, so that there is a clean and easy to follow discussion?

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "doc: fix some typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29842)