💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#discussion_r1606432601)
I also don't agree? This tool is designed to work with Bitcoin Core's RPC server.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#discussion_r1536908349)
Correct, I thought this had been interferring with the manpage section title, but it's not. Reverted.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#discussion_r1536908415)
I suppose you mean https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/revisiting-bip21/630 ? Whilst I am in favour of many parts of that discussion, istm that we should probably update this to include the new format, after a new format is specified?

I'm going to take the suggestion to just use `[URI]`, but will still give BIP21 as an example, so folks reading the manpage can find the format of a (the only) valid URI format accepted (for now).

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#discussion_r1606433867)
Done

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#issuecomment-2119939115)
> I would keep the old comment for each command even in face of the additional information provided (see review comments). I tend to rely a lot on those to quickly remember what the commands do (but will not oppose taking them out if this is the consensus). I understand that they may break the formatting of the manual pages, so feel free to discard them.

Yes, these extra, "inline" descriptions do get in the way of automatic manpage generation unfortunately.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "test: add conflicting topology test case"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066)

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120#pullrequestreview-2065686592)
ACK a057869aa3c42457570765966cb66accb2375b13, I've got a zero diff with my local branch, which reproduces the subtree update, and `ecmult gen table size = 86 KiB` in the configure summary.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "test: remove unneeded `-maxorphantx=1000` settings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30133#pullrequestreview-2065702888)
ACK 8950053636cb38ed85fe2d58b53e5d0acb35c390 From skimming the tests, it appears that none of these need a larger `-maxorphantx`.

It looks like the extra `-maxorphantx=1000`s have existed since each of the tests were introduced. My best guess is this was common when package limits were higher and/or tx relay and orphanage worked a bit differently, and then not cleaned up. For example, descendant packages of 1000 were allowed when mempool_packages.py was first added (along with package trackin
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "test: remove unneeded `-maxorphantx=1000` settings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30133)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1606441254)
Removed from this location

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1606440905)
done

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1606441158)
Thanks, taken here and elsewhere it was being used.

👍 jonasnick approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120#pullrequestreview-2065791232)
utACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: restrict all TRUC (v3) transactions to 10KvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#discussion_r1606540111)
Added. Ran fuzzer for a bit, seems happy

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "policy: restrict all TRUC (v3) transactions to 10KvB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#pullrequestreview-2065844531)
fixed commit message, thanks :+1:

💬 glozow commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#issuecomment-2120121913)
Rebased for #29817

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "indexes: Don't wipe indexes again when continuing a prior reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132#issuecomment-2120147856)
Concept ACK

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120#issuecomment-2120154716)
Guix build (aarch64):
```bash
e7f19ceb7286ff81d1464575418d494dc2143d43cdc8b0e9a1bff7e47cffc773 guix-build-a057869aa3c4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
f7e9fa7ada1cc470342e7851862b25a026add7dbd2a441f22327f516268eabb3 guix-build-a057869aa3c4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a057869aa3c4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
30e3001bf9e9ea03defd21f094887e7c9a5f5b4c95162fbf5ea7d9cbe7458458 guix-build-a057869aa3c4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a057869aa3c4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
3c520e
...

👍 cbergqvist approved a pull request: "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#pullrequestreview-2065901985)
re ACK 24bc46c83b39149f4845a575a82337eb46d91bdb

Inspected `git range-diff 867a673~2..867a673 24bc46c~2..24bc46c`.

Ran same tests as last time (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521/#pullrequestreview-2046768298) with same results.

Tried to repro a boiled down version of the mysterious compiler warning but was unable to reproduce it. Here is what I ended up with: https://godbolt.org/z/fh5KcbbeW
(Not sure about the legalese around uploading Bitcoin Core source to Godbolt but just
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2120203238)
Rebased for #29817 and added a "ensure we can always download a tx as long as we have 1 good outbound peer" fuzz test