📝 Sheyvie opened a pull request: "Modify functional test assignment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31934)

✅ Sheyvie closed a pull request: "Modify functional test assignment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31934)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#issuecomment-2676027983)
> Do you want to include these and then have us ACK-away at the PR?

You can ack this as-is, the changes to signapple are not necessary for the guix environment.

> Or maybe wait for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161 and rebase to make sure that didn't break anything.

It shouldn't as that's not supposed to affect releases, and this does not touch cmake.

📝 chungeun-choi opened a pull request: "Update COPYING"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31935)
test

✅ chungeun-choi closed a pull request: "Update COPYING"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31935)

📝 Bue-von-hon opened a pull request: "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936)
Added support for creating v3 raw transaction:
- Overloaded to include additional parameter

💬 kakao-will-k commented on issue "Add support for creating v3 raw transactions in `createrawtransaction` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31348#issuecomment-2676073324)
@rkrux
We created PR #31936. PTAL

💬 dongwook-chan commented on issue "Add support for creating v3 raw transactions in `createrawtransaction` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31348#issuecomment-2676073563)
@rkrux
We create PR #31936. PTAL

💬 Bue-von-hon commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#issuecomment-2676073736)
@rkrux @theStack @ytrezq PTAL

💬 HaLaGu1L commented on issue "Release Schedule for 29.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31029#issuecomment-2676089258)
> Here is a proposed release schedule for `v29.0`, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. The dates are set to target a release in early April.
>
> ## 2025-02-06 ✔️
> * Open Transifex translations for `v29.0`
> * Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
> * Finalize and close translations for `v27.0`
>
> ## 2025-02-20 🚧
> * Feature freeze (bug fixes only until release)
> * Translation string freeze (no more source language changes until release)

...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#issuecomment-2676124068)
You'll have to add tests for any new feature and make sure the tests pass

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#pullrequestreview-2634769723)
lgtm

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#discussion_r1966489545)
ctest (below) only checks unit tests

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#discussion_r1966489561)
missing newline?

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "getrawtransaction implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/777)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "getrawtransaction implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/777#issuecomment-2676138266)
Closing for now due to inactivity for more than a year

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#issuecomment-2676143578)
cc @vasild

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2676164722)
Updated c72b2c2883d4c8791267133f326e3f9347d1520b -> 29513955891e40e78466f2c666dfa13e9c1b2914 ([kernelApi_26](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_26) -> [kernelApi_27](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_27), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_26..kernelApi_27))

* Cleaned up some dead code missed while removing the `kernel_ValidationInterface`.

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Update COPYING"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31935)
test

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Revert merge of PR #31826":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31908#issuecomment-2676190482)
I don't think it is (trivially) possible to have a CI check for the fallback code without running the CI on the erroneous chip. However, I am not sure if it is worth it to integrate (and maintain) the erroneous chip into the CI in this repo just to check code that is added and never modified (apart from maybe minor refactorings every couple of years). I wouldn't recommend to blindly trust CI anyway, so local testing of the feature should be done either way. (And if no one can be bothered to tes
...