💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: sync chainstate to disk after syncing to tip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15218#discussion_r1623684934)
Updated the log message to be `"Node is still in IBD, rescheduling post-IBD chainstate disk sync..."`. Does that clarify it?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: sync chainstate to disk after syncing to tip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15218#discussion_r1623684976)
Yes, good idea. Done.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "doc: add guidance for RPC to developer notes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30142#discussion_r1623686633)
Thanks for taking a look.
Good point. Removed this statement as it is quite similar to `Try to make the RPC response a JSON object` and could be confusing.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "doc: add guidance for RPC to developer notes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30142#discussion_r1623686715)
Thanks. Agreed. Updated.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: sync chainstate to disk after syncing to tip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15218#issuecomment-2144181791)
@mzumsande @chrisguida thank you for your reviews and suggestions. I've addressed them and rebased.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: increase `txorphan` harness stability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30186)

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "depends: Update Boost download link"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30217)
The Boost has [migrated](https://github.com/boostorg/boost-tasks/pull/3) their downloads from from boostorg.jfrog.io to archives.boost.io.

So do we.

FWIW, the download speed at my location is much better :)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: remove `--enable-lcov-branch-coverage`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30192)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc, rpc: Release notes and follow-ups for #29612":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30167#discussion_r1624101256)
I think we can make any further release note additions when the notes are consolidated / merged into the wiki.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc, rpc: Release notes and follow-ups for #29612"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30167)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "make cov fails with lcov-2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28468#issuecomment-2144736523)
@maflcko was #30192 enough to close this?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1624125082)
> did you encounter a case where the current/previous implementation that uses ConsumeBytes() is "unstable" or had problems in some other way?

No I just found this while investigating the peek issue (which was the main blocker).

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1624126459)
Fixed.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1624128417)
Added some comments

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1624133280)
I could only find the following in the docs and based the changes here on that.

```
This flag causes the receive operation to return data from
the beginning of the receive queue without removing that
data from the queue. Thus, a subsequent receive call will
return the same data.
```

We could make it so that a peek read only returns one byte and a subsequent normal read return N bytes where the first byte corresponds to the peek byte. But I'm not sure if that would change much for our
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "feefrac: 128-bit multiply support in MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29758#discussion_r1624155073)
Why do this `Mul`'s return type and `MulFallback`'s one differ?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Fix building `fuzz` binary on on SunOS / illumos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30216#issuecomment-2144798700)
ACK 3299abce948f205bb1354993614b669189f9b89f

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends: Update Boost download link":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30217#issuecomment-2144806703)
ACK ffbc173ca1ed6b93de8bf3f88b8aed0743f4916c

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Use `CC_FOR_BUILD` for `config.guess `":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29963#issuecomment-2144810134)
> Is this still an issue given recent CMake changes?

Yes. Tested with the master branch @ 80bdd4b6beb878c95478b5623c9f9ff0b948ad57.

And this PR still fixes it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Lint: support running individual rust linters and improve subtree exclusion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29965#issuecomment-2144818621)
Any thoughts on splitting the first commit out into a separate pull? Seems to be a requested feature by three people so far, but I am not sure about bundling it for review with the other changes here.