💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "RPC: Add reserve member function to `UniValue` and use it in `getblock` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31179#issuecomment-2444918015)
Concept ACK

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2445007388)
light ACK 0f4bc635854597e15ea6968767fc4e5cf5bdd790

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: getorphantxs follow-up":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31043#issuecomment-2445022460)
ACK 0ea84bc362f395fd247623c22942eb5ca3d1b874

🤔 theuni reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Add `FindZeroMQ` module"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30903#pullrequestreview-2402777638)
Post-merge ACK 915640e191b6a17a245f0502bc399d82a6502ccf

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: getorphantxs follow-up"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31043)

⚠️ sr-gi opened an issue: "`Wunused-member-function` in test each commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31180)
#31045 introduced `-werror` to test each commit, which makes things like `Wunused-member-function` an error now.

This feels pretty aggressive in the cases where some methods may be defined in isolation in commit A, and then used elsewhere in commit B (following A).

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "init: Correct coins db cache size setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31064#issuecomment-2445106612)
ACK 3a4a788ee0db83d20607f14801dbed2ee932943c

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "init: Correct coins db cache size setting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31064)

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "RPC: Add reserve member function to `UniValue` and use it in `getblock` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31179#issuecomment-2445122123)
I think we can take this further and reserve for VOBJ types instead of just VARR.
The VOBJ uses both values and keys, so we can reserve both. We can count how many times we do `pushKV` and reserve that amount for both keys and values.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: extend the SOCKS5 Python proxy to actually connect to a destination":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29420#issuecomment-2445134031)
ACK 57529ac4dbb2721c1ad0a3566f0299dbdb5ca5c0

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: extend the SOCKS5 Python proxy to actually connect to a destination"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29420)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1821427081)
Well, this really depends. `GetFanoutTargets` is called by `RelayTransaction`, which, in turn, may be called by `ProcessMessage` for a peer that has `NetPermissionFlags::ForceRelay`. So if force relay is used for both fanout and set reconciliation, as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1818575030, then this could be called twice leading to two different sorting if we don't do so deterministically

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1821431430)
Yeah, you're right. Given how small the two vectors are, calling `ShouldFanoutTo` with a merged vector should not incur any major overhead, so merging will make it easier to read

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "test: Don't enforce BIP94 on regtest unless specified by arg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31156#pullrequestreview-2402922051)
utACK e60cecc8115d3b28be076792baa5e4ea26d353a6

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1821276305)
nit: would be nice to check the changeset exists before applying it

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#pullrequestreview-2402586962)
LGTM e2324779781b695024d3b17340001fa2da5d3c7f

with non-blocking nits

will do some testing

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1821226055)
8e2aac1e87b67a5d28cdc507df9bca85614cc97d it's using the same cached value, so how can it return something new?

this disappears next commit of course...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1821344367)
copy/past error or something?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1821390942)
it's not called from ATMP or tests anymore, thankfully it's private now