💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[WIP] build: remove need to test for endianness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29852#issuecomment-2058762767)
What benchmarks might be appropiate for testing changes like these?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add a few more base32/64 calculation corner cases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#issuecomment-2058797361)
Another great way to contribute would be to spend time on in-depth review of open pull requests and compare your review with the review done by others. Obviously this will be time-consuming, starting out, but if you care about the project, over time it will teach you relevant skills (for this project and for yourself to apply elsewhere).

On some pull requests, there remain small follow-ups that were found during review, so you'll naturally find stuff to work on if you start out by reviewing p
...

💬 Jgoedhart1988 commented on pull request "Fix typos in `subprocess.hpp`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29849#issuecomment-2058798586)
Hello World

🤔 Jgoedhart1988 reviewed a pull request: "Fix typos in `subprocess.hpp`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29849#pullrequestreview-2003287765)
Ok

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Fix typos in `subprocess.hpp`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29849)
Resolves one item in the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981#pullrequestreview-1991272752:
> - Remove linter exclusions and fix all issues.

Based on upstream https://github.com/arun11299/cpp-subprocess/pull/101.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: archive 27.0 release notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29886)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[WIP] build: remove need to test for endianness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29852#issuecomment-2058803343)
> What benchmarks might be appropiate for testing changes like these?

Microbenchmarks + IBD?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "deploy: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29890)
Neither of these tools are actually used when we are cross-compiling for macOS. They are used when we have to adjust non-static libs during a deploy after building on a macOS machine. Simplies #29739 (will be rebased on top).

Guix (aarch64):
```bash
8f29bce75d7f574306a0e38d793e0e4e145b547a4b9e5a755a54976121d8ac41 guix-build-5afd3c302051/output/arm64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
9ba01fe46be715adcbe80f39dc7dbe449f32ca9d9b660da698f933aef3e6d80b guix-build-5afd3c302051/output/arm64-apple-dar
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#pullrequestreview-2003285723)
thanks for the review @mzumsande!

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567166818)
marking as resolved since #29827 does this

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567166471)
updated

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567165968)
Elaborated in commit message

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567146604)
I've added more explicit tests and changed this to be ordered based on `uint256.GetHex()` instead. I don't know enough to say which sorting is better here, but this seems like the natural ordering when I'm reading the hex strings as a human.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567166366)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567166206)
Done, and edited the logging a bit

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "deploy: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29890#discussion_r1567170024)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c7567d9223a927a88173ff04eeb4f54a5c02b43d/contrib/macdeploy/macdeployqtplus#L212

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "deploy: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29890#discussion_r1567171605)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c7567d9223a927a88173ff04eeb4f54a5c02b43d/contrib/macdeploy/macdeployqtplus#L231

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "deploy: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29890#discussion_r1567172725)
Did you read the description? Neither of these code paths are hit when cross compiling.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "deploy: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29890#discussion_r1567178023)
> Did you read the description?

I did.

> Neither of these code paths are hit when cross compiling.

It is not obvious from reading the ``macdeployqtplus` code. Maybe add a few comments to make it clear?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "fuzz: explicitly cap the vsize of RBFs for diagram checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29879#discussion_r1567200048)
done