👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "doc: fix a few likely documentation typos related to CMake migration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30734)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: fix a few likely documentation typos related to CMake migration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30734)

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test: Fix RANDOM_CTX_SEED use with parallel tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30737#issuecomment-2315809451)
Will review after rebase.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "doc: fix 3 simple CI codespell warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#discussion_r1734997839)
Removed the invalid ones and added re-use and incomin

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "doc: fix 3 simple CI codespell warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#discussion_r1734998100)
done

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "depends: build libevent with `-D_GNU_SOURCE`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30743)
Currently, builds of libevent in depends, using CMake, fail on some systems, like Alpine, with the following:
```bash
/bitcoin/depends/work/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-musl/libevent/2.1.12-stable-1516ed47ea8/evmap.c: In function 'evmap_signal_add_':
/bitcoin/depends/work/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-musl/libevent/2.1.12-stable-1516ed47ea8/evmap.c:456:31: error: 'NSIG' undeclared (first use in this function)
456 | if (sig < 0 || sig >= NSIG)
```

From what I can tell the `GNU_SOUR
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#issuecomment-2315825897)
Concept ACK. Nice to remove the global state and methods.

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "doc: fix CI codespell warnings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#pullrequestreview-2266799784)
ack 837fbca03602982d9f1055ac798711241ea3d0a0 ci output looks fine.

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: fix CI codespell warnings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#pullrequestreview-2266802572)
ACK 837fbca03602982d9f1055ac798711241ea3d0a0

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: fix CI codespell warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#discussion_r1735006468)
nit, `\ No newline at end of file`

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: fix CI codespell warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30700#issuecomment-2315835889)
(Looks like the PR description could be updated.)

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: update dev note examples for CMake"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30739#pullrequestreview-2266834043)
Tested ACK 7de0c99804bca98ef159b7b778e6f5b602507d2c

(modulo local issue with the third incantation that is unrelated to this change, with my machine not finding clang-tidy-diff `zsh: no such file or directory: ./clang-tidy-diff`)

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#pullrequestreview-2266855112)
Would it be a good idea to update relevant BIPs?

BIP88:
```
There is a discussion on path templating for bitcoin script descriptors at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17190, which proposes the format <code>xpub...{0,1}/*</code>, of which the <code>{0,1}/*</code> part would correspond to the partial path template in the format of this BIP.
```

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1735041704)
nit, compilers may auto-optimize here but if anyone handles the other feedback suggestions: `s/i++/++i/`

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1735039600)
`s/contain/contains`

💬 theuni commented on pull request "kernel: Use spans instead of vectors for passing block headers to validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30742#discussion_r1735049626)
I think you want `std::span<const CBlockHeader>` for these. In addition to preserving constness, it allows elements to be passed in as `{{foo}}`, rather than specifying spans everywhere.

🤔 theuni reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Use spans instead of vectors for passing block headers to validation functions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30742#pullrequestreview-2266870475)
Concept ACK.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "depends: build libevent with `-D_GNU_SOURCE`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30743#issuecomment-2315899087)
> In any case, we'll need to do something for the 28.x branch.

Would be nice if this was a clean merge to both branches.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "kernel: Use spans instead of vectors for passing block headers to validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30742#issuecomment-2315902367)
Actually, I read this assuming we'd already migrated away from `Span`, which isn't the case. So probably best not to start introducing `std::span`s until that's happened?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "kernel: Use spans instead of vectors for passing block headers to validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30742#issuecomment-2315904570)
Relevant: #29119