💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Handshake prerequisites":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23561#issuecomment-1512705307)
Closing this for now, as it's partly included in #27479.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Handshake prerequisites"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23561)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: add regression tests for #27468 (invalid URI segfaults)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27477#issuecomment-1512724993)
This has been merged.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "test: add regression tests for #27468 (invalid URI segfaults)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27477)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "blockstorage: Adjust fastprune limit if block exceeds blockfile size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27191#discussion_r1169737011)
I checked this carefully again and don't think anymore that the `+ 1` is necessary.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "[24.x] Additional backports for 24.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27474#pullrequestreview-1389688800)
ACK 5c937ae7c323198c76f1743870c68f8576305a6e

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Use Cirrus CI dockerfile env":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27340#issuecomment-1512764647)
Going to merge this now, so that `25.x` and `master` will have the same CI infra.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Use Cirrus CI dockerfile env"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27340)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "[24.x] Additional backports for 24.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27474#issuecomment-1512851845)
Suggest adding https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/db6cf79694112a4679378fdd1f2bdf69cf6adbea which backports #27468, but without the changes to `rest_mempool` (query parameters in this endpoint were added only after v24 in #26207).

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "kernel: chainparams updates for 25.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27482)
Update chainparams pre `25.x` branch off.
Co-Author in the commits as a PR (#27223) had previously been opened too-early to do the same.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update chainparams for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27223#issuecomment-1512884770)
Done in #27482 (added you as co-author).

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: " Bump python minimum version to 3.8 "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483)
There is no pressing reason to drop support for 3.7, however there are several maintenance issues:

* There is no supported operating system that ships 3.7 by default. (debian:buster is EOL and unmaintained to the extent that it doesn't run in the CI environment. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27340#issuecomment-1484988445)
* Compiling python 3.7 from source is also unsupported on at least macos, according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24017#issuecomment-1107820790

...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[24.x] Additional backports for 24.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27474#issuecomment-1512916261)
> Suggest adding https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/db6cf79694112a4679378fdd1f2bdf69cf6adbea which backports https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27468,

Pulled & added metadata.

> Suggest adding https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f73782a9032a462a71569e9424db9bf9eeababf3.

Ok.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Remove BIP35 mempool p2p message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426#issuecomment-1512920984)
Concept ACK but i think BTCPay is using it. cc @NicolasDorier

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: remove outdated version number usage from release-process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27484)
We no-longer use the leading `0.` version number, and having a mixture is both in the release-process examples is needlessly confusing.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "Bump python minimum version to 3.8"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483#pullrequestreview-1389896117)
Concept ACK

I'm not sure why we're switching to focal instead of bullseye for the `qt5` ci, but I don't really have a view either way. Just pointing it out.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Bump python minimum version to 3.8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483#discussion_r1169893585)
```suggestion
| [Python](https://www.python.org) (scripts, tests) | [3.8](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483) |
```

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Bump python minimum version to 3.8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483#issuecomment-1512944734)
> I'm not sure why we're switching to focal instead of bullseye

The reason is that bullseye does not have a single of the needed packages:

* https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/g++-8
* https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/clang-8
* https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/python3

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: bugfix, 'AvailableCoins' invalid output type set for raw PK outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27478#issuecomment-1513020966)
closing since it's not a bug, just an odd classification.

✅ furszy closed a pull request: "wallet: bugfix, 'AvailableCoins' invalid output type set for raw PK outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27478)