💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#discussion_r1574574102)
nit: Noticed you renamed `test_node` -> `peer` above (based off https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#discussion_r1531465214) but not inside `test_outbound_eviction_blocks_relay_only()`.

(Was diffing against older head (59affd0bf9042d746a6b32739edb0cd45d28d569)).

Might be worth changing once you rebase on top of #29736.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: Allow non-standard scripts with -acceptnonstdtxn=1 (test nets only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29843#issuecomment-2069138726)
concept ACK fwiw

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#issuecomment-2069158282)
OK Luke you've persuaded me. I've re-worked this now to accept `-rpccookieperms=[user|group|others]`.

> nit: Recommend augmenting content in doc/init.md to inform of default cookie file permissions.
Example in this commit https://github.com/tdb3/bitcoin/commit/fdd8a4e70632c74c630caaff5cc36da0c309168e (welcome to cherry pick as desired).
bitcoind --help already states default permissions of 400, so the addition to init.md is author's discretion.

Thansk @tdb3, I've taken your suggestion in
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "fuzz: explicitly cap the vsize of RBFs for diagram checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29879)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574610556)
I copied this from the way we do `unique_parents` in orphan parent requests (see the discussion on #19596 about the dynamic memory usage and speed). However I don't mind either way and agree a `std::set` would be simpler, so happy to change if people prefer using a set.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574612750)
Ah, forgot to remove the comment. We need to make time parameterizable across `TxOrphanage` members to test order, so not testing / saving for followup.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "lint: Refactor lint checks to reuse exclusion logic; Support running individual lint checks in lint runner"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29744)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "lint: Refactor lint checks to reuse exclusion logic; Support running individual lint checks in lint runner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29744#issuecomment-2069237590)
Closing for now per previous discussion. Feel free to create a new pull request(s) with the behavior changes and an accurate description in your own words. Please try to avoid the use of the word "refactor" for bugfixes or behavior changes.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574632413)
I think it's pretty common to name a temporary data structure based on its intended result. But ok, I've changed it to `iters` now.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574634137)
Ah that was supposed to be another log, should be fixed now

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574616580)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574633307)
deleted

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574616703)
deleted

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1574616498)
deleted

👍 fjahr approved a pull request: "doc: explain what the wallet password does"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#pullrequestreview-2014630337)
ACK d07557d0038521f78baf3f1c94e1f282f51b8c1b

Could still be condensed a bit but this is alright.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#discussion_r1574679210)
nit: This is extremely wordy, could be shortened to one sentence since this is just an intro.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#discussion_r1574678252)
nit: I'm not sure if we need to give general IT security advice. I would probably remove that part.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Fix intermittent issue in p2p_handshake.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29898#pullrequestreview-2014656748)
Tested ACK 6b02c11d667adff24daf611f9b14815d27963674

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Fix intermittent timeout in p2p_tx_download.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29933)
Currently the test passes, but may fail during shutdown, because blocks are synced with `NUM_INBOUND` * `self.num_nodes` peers, which may take a long time.

There is no need for this test to have this amount of inbounds.

So avoid the extraneous inbounds to speed up the test and avoid the intermittent test failures.

👋 paplorinc's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: Reduce memory copying operations in bech32 encoding/decoding"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29607)