💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "RFC: Multiprocess binaries and packaging options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30983#issuecomment-2515536756)
The `bitcoin` wrapper discussed above is added in PR #31375

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: Fix passing `APPEND_*FLAGS` to `secp256k1` subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31379#issuecomment-2515540501)
> 🤦🤦
>
> Could you split this into 2 commits? The fixes you describe sound simple enough, but the removal of the helpers makes this hard to review.

Sure thing! Done.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2515543821)
Updated 27072547bb22cdd2080d1014eba9c30bc9d47650 -> 99f2f335b6a8c2b5fe518a0c0056eb2a42c0496b ([`pr/mine.14`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/mine.14) -> [`pr/mine.15`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/mine.15), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/mine.14..pr/mine.15)) just moving a line to avoid a merge conflict.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Multiprocess bitcoin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2515554249)
Not sure if it's worth sharing here but hey what's an 1300th comment.

Running `bitcoin-node` from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29409 with commits `1045047a73a0b3ae15647ab5bf1829d27141b7cd`..`9ca113f326fc9ba2f661595283f4aef390df984d` from this PR cherry-picked on top.

Simply compiled with `cmake -B multiprocbuild/ -DWITH_MULTIPROCESS=ON && cmake --build multiprocbuild/ -j20`. (Although i did have to apply the following diff to be able to compile on Debian stable.)
<details>
<su
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qa: Fix `wallet_multiwallet.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31410#discussion_r1868374227)
I'm not sure if testing the scenario with the modified ACL on Windows is worth the added complexity of the test script.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: use python from venv if available":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31411#issuecomment-2515600619)
> ... it can be tricky to configure cmake to use a python venv.

I've read https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/blob/main/README.md#python-management and used the following script for simplicity:
```cmake
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.22)
project(test_py LANGUAGES NONE)
find_package(Python3 COMPONENTS Interpreter)
message("Python3_EXECUTABLE=${Python3_EXECUTABLE}")
```

I have no problems with finding `uv`'s Python on my Ubuntu 24.04:
```
$ python3 --version # system's Python
Python
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1868406931)
I added a comment for this instead of making a full set part of the sorting criteria. This should not happen under normal circumstances provided the set size is defined to account for way over the expected traffic between reconciliations. A peer hitting the limit is likely to be either broken or an attacker, and I don't think we should be catering to them (nor making the logic more complex based on that)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1868408445)
Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116/commits/f51e36057e509356890a70ced3a7209f98e8db4f

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1868409396)
Done in the last force push

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1868410206)
Covered in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116/commits/f51e36057e509356890a70ced3a7209f98e8db4f

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175#issuecomment-2515669856)
ACK 73db95c65c1d372822166045ca8b9f173d5fd883

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#issuecomment-2515696899)
ACK 32fc59796f74a2941772b5ec2755b1319132cd9c

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Clamp worker threads in ChainstateManager constructor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31313#issuecomment-2515702156)
ACK 8f85d36d68ab33ba237407a2ed16667eb149d61f

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Why does `submitpackage` require at least two transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31085)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Package validation: accept packages of size 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: Clamp worker threads in ChainstateManager constructor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31313)

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "test: Prove+document ConstevalFormatString/tinyformat parity"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30933#pullrequestreview-2476944966)
So, I was a bit late reacting to the merge of #31174, but here we are - rebased and ready for review again.

Added a commit regarding non-parity of `"%n"` as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31174#issuecomment-2447224880.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: Prove+document ConstevalFormatString/tinyformat parity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30933#discussion_r1868489198)
The known cases where I was using `PassFmtIncorrect` have now become valid `PassFmt` thanks to your #31174. `PassFmtIncorrect` is no more.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: Prove+document ConstevalFormatString/tinyformat parity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30933#discussion_r1868488090)
Thanks! Ended up naming it **Tfm**FormatZeroes in latest push to highlight the tinyformat part being essential.