🤔 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

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "fuzz: explicitly cap the vsize of RBFs for diagram checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29879#issuecomment-2058873450)
@glozow was waiting for positive feedback. Squashed.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1559187981)
newline?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1559188232)
newline?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1567205749)
> The other benefit is extensibility in the future. In more general ancestor package relay, we could reject a parent+child for being too low feerate, but later accept it as parent+child+grandchild (where the grandchild is very high feerate).

Perhaps this doesn't matter but I'm not sure I understand the distinction here. We need the combined hash committed *somewhere* in a bloom filter to not fetch the same ancestor package again. If it's different at all, we'll fetch it regardless of which fi
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "ZMQ: Support UNIX domain sockets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1567251185)
fwiw, i prefer having only a single consistent syntax for unix sockets throughout the RPC settings. Outside of zmq i've never heard of a `ipc://` scheme. It's better to just document this.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "guix: remove `gcc-toolchain static` from Windows build":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29828#issuecomment-2058958011)
ACK 05da2460db895374ea1fd89e4b8b4b73689f8faf

- i get the same build output as @hebasto
- compared the import headers between this PR and the commit before it, no changes at all:
```
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-objdump -p bitcoin-05da2460db89/bin/bitcoin-qt.exe > b
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-objdump -p bitcoin-f0794cbd4056/bin/bitcoin-qt.exe > a
$ diff -du a b
--- a 2024-04-16 14:15:13.713101675 +0200
+++ b 2024-04-16 14:15:06.641040571 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

-bitcoin-f0794cbd4056/bin/bitcoin
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: swap some cctools tools for LLVM tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29739#issuecomment-2058963767)
> Fixed up.

This was actually just masking a bug. Dropped and rebased on #29890, which has simplified things here.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "ZMQ: Support UNIX domain sockets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1567266789)
Let's move this prefix to some zmq specific header or implementation file, no need for it to be in `netbase.h`.