💬 hernanmarino commented on pull request "Wallet : Allow user to navigate options while encrypting at creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/722#discussion_r1149455794)
Yes, will do.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "wallet: Replace use of purpose strings with an enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27217#discussion_r1149457810)
IIRC, don't we get all sorts of compiler goodness if we use `switch` with an enum, like compiler warnings for unhandled cases? Would be nice, in the event we ever add a new case to the enum (although seems unlikely for this specific use-case).

I always prefer using `switch` with enums, but feel free to ignore if you don't feel like retouching/don't share the same opinion.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Use TSan new runtime (llvm-16, take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298#issuecomment-1485397265)
Looks like the explicit `libclang-rt-dev` package installation was lost, so configure is failing.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: make fontconfig build under clang-16"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27301)
ACK 9cbc1c279247800d79c5f6f95c0c2d8f387aac0a

💬 josibake commented on pull request "wallet: Replace use of purpose strings with an enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27217#discussion_r1149481491)
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wswitch-enum , super nice and still warns for unhandled cases even when you have a default.

✅ vstoyanov closed a pull request: "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "fuzz: Remove legacy int parse fuzz tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27344#issuecomment-1485478244)
Concept ACK

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "depends does not compile with clang-16 (fontconfig)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27299)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: make fontconfig build under clang-16"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27301)

💬 vstoyanov commented on pull request "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#issuecomment-1485513160)
Apologies, could we reopen this one? I tried rebasing to retrigger Cirrus CI

📝 vstoyanov reopened a pull request: "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333)
Basically it removes the above-mentioned env-vars as per @MarcoFalke's instructions. The only deviation from the plan laid out there was that I double-quoted the last instance of $ANDROID_HOME for the sake of consistency and future-proofing and the rest of the non-quoted vars due to lint failing the build.

References #27321

💬 vstoyanov commented on pull request "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#discussion_r1149558891)
It is basically the same trick described in #27321 to be used for `apt`, `dnf` is basically the Redhat package manager
The other option would be to arrayify PACKAGES and CI_BASE_PACKAGES. I have that in my git stash too, but even though it is a cleaner, it actually adds a couple extra lines when initialising the defaults. I value both cleanness and simplicity, so I cannot choose myself which way is better.

The interesting question is whether I should do the same for pip3 - otherwise the guy
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#discussion_r1149573218)
iirc, `./depends` was the only folder affected, so removing the second user account and running as root seems fine.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "ci: cleanup of CI_EXEC & CI_EXEC_ROOT (refs #27321)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#issuecomment-1485545697)
Concept ACK

lgtm (although, CI is failing). happy to re-review once passing. also happy to review any follow-ups to remove the extra user account, since that was only introduced to solve the problem of CI changing file permissions on `depends` when running CI locally (which seems to no longer be an issue per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27333#discussion_r1148898438)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1149579411)
> Last time I checked it had ~70k addresses and also it will have at least a bunch of addresses from each network, not just 1 address.

"bunch of addresses from each network", how much? Last time I checked my node (running with multiple networks) I remembered that the number of i2p addresses were so small compared to clearnet, for example.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1149570742)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1147716697

> > allowignoredconf
>
> yeah

Renamed warnignoredconf to allowignoredconf

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1149569979)
> re: [#27302 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1147719940)
>
> I don't think the PRs should be combined though. Better for them to stay targeted and simple. If there are any conflicts they should be trivial.

It turns out it is not possible to actually write a meaningful test for #27303 without some of the test code added in this PR. This PR adds test coverage for starting bitcoind without `-conf` or `-datadir` arguments, just with a `bitcoin.conf` file in
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1149454952)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#discussion_r1149161983

> Nit: This is currently printing the line instructing the user to set `warningnoredconf=1` even when it is already set.

Thanks, changed "resolve" to "address" and reworded the text to make it clear a warning will still occur.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1149603943)
> "bunch of addresses from each network", how much?

If helpful, my node knows 15k Tor, 1.2k I2P and 8 CJDNS recently active peers ATM for a bit more than 16k total non-clearnet peers.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#issuecomment-1485580415)
> > > Show an error on startup if a bitcoin datadir that is being used contains a bitcoin.conf file that is ignored
> >
> >
> > ```
> > 1. Why is it ignored?
> > ```
>
> It's debatable whether it should be ignored, but the reason it is ignored is that one configuration file has already been parsed and trying to merge in a second configuration file in another datadir would be new and potentially confusing behavior. Merging in another configuration file could lead to unexpected conflicts
...