🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: explicitly cap the vsize of RBFs for diagram checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29879#pullrequestreview-2002964571)
Approach of breaking when adding another tx would overflow seems fine to me. Did you forget to squash?

⚠️ OkSang88 opened an issue: "Oksang"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29887)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/71b63195b30b2fa0dff20ebb262ce7566dd5d673/src%2Fnet_processing.cpp

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Oksang"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29887)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Oksang"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29887)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add missing Assert(mock_time_in >= 0s) to SetMockTime":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29872#discussion_r1566955575)
Both can be used. In this context they are exactly the same.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Release schedule for 27.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29028#issuecomment-2058539546)
v27.0 has now been tagged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v27.0.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Release schedule for 27.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29028)

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: archive 27.0 release notes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29886#issuecomment-2058543218)
ACK c08754971d207bd2b60ba9c4faf34396a97bbc26
No output for
```
git diff c08754971d207bd2b60ba9c4faf34396a97bbc26:doc/release-notes/release-notes-27.0.md v27.0:doc/release-notes.md
```

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[27.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29888)
Backports:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29691
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29747
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29869

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: use GCC 13 to builds releases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29881#issuecomment-2058544837)
For reference, the previous bump was e1ce5b8ae9124717c00dca71a5c5b43a7f5ad177, which is in master only and not yet in a release branch.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "`test/streams_tests.cpp` fails to compile on SunOS / illumos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29884#issuecomment-2058578466)
> However, my preference would be to completely avoid `signed char` and just use `int8_t` in the serialization code. That is, fix the test to use `int8_t`.

I lean to agree, considering that `signed char` is used in tests only.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "guix: remove `gcc-toolchain static` from Windows build"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29828#pullrequestreview-2003064639)
ACK 05da2460db895374ea1fd89e4b8b4b73689f8faf,

My Guix build:
```
450c0c4f45f9cb7ed7fc2ef6e7557b6a23004b82c951399da3b7635e8451a076 guix-build-05da2460db89/output/dist-archive/bitcoin-05da2460db89.tar.gz
5df68ab18636090c387bc90297356d0e148b02931d3a99c0f6d33cd268aa072b guix-build-05da2460db89/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/SHA256SUMS.part
13e979f60d9296aa11081fbbb360404da9fbb797bb4663ed2d1189d800659b4f guix-build-05da2460db89/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-05da2460db89-win64-debug.zip
d1cc
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "`test/streams_tests.cpp` fails to compile on SunOS / illumos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29884#issuecomment-2058600361)
Happy to review a pull, if someone creates one.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: remove unused cpp-subprocess options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29865#issuecomment-2058610414)
> FWIW I think it's a valid choice to remove what we're not using and re-introduce it when we do, the code is out there there's little point in keeping unused code in the repository.

I agree.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Fix false positive `CHECK_ATOMIC` test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29859#issuecomment-2058623912)
review ACK dd3e0fa12534c9e782dc9c24d2e30b70a0d73176

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Intermittent issue in test/ipc_tests.cpp Fatal glibc error: pthread_mutex_lock.c:450 (__pthread_mutex_lock_full): assertion failed: e != ESRCH || !robust"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29889)
Happened on current master d29fc3a245c070494155dad4cf68b9c95d99c13e in ci_i686_multiprocess

```
Running tests: wallet_util_tests from wallet/test/rpc_util_tests.cpp
Running tests: scriptpubkeyman_tests from wallet/test/scriptpubkeyman_tests.cpp
Running tests: walletload_tests from wallet/test/walletload_tests.cpp
Running tests: group_outputs_tests from wallet/test/group_outputs_tests.cpp
Running tests: db_tests from wallet/test/db_tests.cpp
Running tests: ipc_tests from test/ipc_tests.c
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Intermittent issue in test/ipc_tests.cpp Fatal glibc error: pthread_mutex_lock.c:450 (__pthread_mutex_lock_full): assertion failed: e != ESRCH || !robust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29889#issuecomment-2058655310)
```
# podman exec ci_i686_multiprocess uname -a
Linux a943c4649ecd 5.14.21-150400.24.100-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Dec 4 19:12:13 UTC 2023 (3f5cd84) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

💬 fanquake commented on issue "ci: failure in `rpc_scanblocks.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29831#issuecomment-2058678496)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4562186641604608?logs=ci#L4268

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "refactor/test: add a few more base32/64 calculation corner cases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#discussion_r1567078029)
Removed the 3/4 to 6/8 change, kept only the test.
I don't yet understand how we expect this code to become more and more maintainable, if we don't regularly leave the campground cleaner than we've found it.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: race fix, lock cs_main while 'm_synced' is subject to change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29867#issuecomment-2058716277)
> Is it worth it to partially revert? Why not just git revert 0faafb57f8298547949cbc0044ee9e925ed887ba?

I didn't do it because the revert is not clean. It conflicts with bbe82c116e72ca0638751e063bf564cd1fe5c4d5 and it would require an extra commit for the added doc (which, based on the issue, is a must have for me).
But np on doing it and squashing the commits down to one. One sec.