🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: Avoid integer sanitizer warnings in policy_estimator target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32154)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#discussion_r2048861716)
Expanded the comment and commit description.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-2812748207)
Rebased after #32271.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: switch to LLVM 20 in tidy job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32226#issuecomment-2812748458)
@l0rinc I've taken some of these, but I'm not planning on making further refactors here, just updating the infra. Happy to review a followup.

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Bitcoin Core Config Generator"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32106)

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "doc: Add deps install notes for multiprocess"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32293)
These just mirror the content in src/ipc/libmultiprocess/doc/install.md

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: bump boost to 1.87.0 and use new CMake buildsystem":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30434#issuecomment-2812764618)
> > @hebasto Want to try putting that behind a variable and upstreaming it? It'd be nice if we didn't have to carry that patch.
>
> Sure thing!
>
> Done in [boostorg/test#445](https://github.com/boostorg/test/pull/445).

https://github.com/boostorg/test/pull/445 has just been merged.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize block serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#issuecomment-2812765790)
@TheCharlatan, I've added back the single-byte optimizations (simplified slightly after rebase), your feedback is appreciated.

👋 l0rinc's pull request is ready for review: "[IBD] specialize block serialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868)

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "feefrac_mul_div: Integer-overflow in FeeFrac::Div"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32294)
https://issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/411172125:

```
echo '//v////7/////f////////8=' | base64 --decode > /tmp/dat

UBSAN_OPTIONS="suppressions=$(pwd)/test/sanitizer_suppressions/ubsan:print_stacktrace=1:halt_on_error=1:report_error_type=1" FUZZ=feefrac_mul_div ./bld-cmake/bin/fuzz /tmp/dat
```

```
src/util/feefrac.h:99:21: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 9223372036854775807 + 1 cannot be represented in type 'int64_t' (aka 'long')

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: switch to LLVM 20 in tidy job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32226#issuecomment-2812782111)
ACK e1254c4bd99441ed954480a5883132786ac3c36a

<details>
<summary>Changes since last ACK</summary>

```patch
diff --git a/src/common/args.cpp b/src/common/args.cpp
index ab84d32722..1e3f6d1b88 100644
--- a/src/common/args.cpp
+++ b/src/common/args.cpp
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ bool ArgsManager::ParseParameters(int argc, const char* const argv[], std::strin
// internet" warning, and clicks the Open button, macOS passes
// a unique process serial number (PSN) as -psn_... com
...

💬 glozow commented on issue "Test Package Accept":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32160#issuecomment-2812786609)
> Given that we want testmempoolaccept to relax the requirement that the transaction should be topologically connected

There is already no requirement of connectedness now

> Given that we want testmempoolaccept to relax the requirement that the transaction should be topologically connected due to the reasons discussed above, should we consider extending submitpackage to do the same since as you mentioned in practice, some transactions already in the mempool can cause the submitted package to b
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add optional blockhash to waitfornewblock, unhide wait methods in help":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30635#issuecomment-2812790873)
Ready for review now that #30635 landed.

👋 Sjors's pull request is ready for review: "rpc: add optional blockhash to waitfornewblock, unhide wait methods in help"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30635)

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "gui: translation spam?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32295)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bfeacc18b36132ba8ac70142133cd6c0e63b6763/src/qt/locale/bitcoin_pl.ts#L3057

I can't find any other translations that contains a links to `github.com`.

Further down in the same file, this also looks like spam:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bfeacc18b36132ba8ac70142133cd6c0e63b6763/src/qt/locale/bitcoin_pl.ts#L3083

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296)
Inspired by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32154, the main goal of this PR is to reenable sanitizer checks for `serialize.h` (last commit)

👋 suiyuan1314's pull request is ready for review: "docs: improve development guidelines for PR merging"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32006)

💬 suiyuan1314 commented on pull request "docs: improve development guidelines for PR merging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32006#issuecomment-2812880721)
> @suiyuan1314 what's the status of this? Concept ~0.

Hi sir, I have updated the suggestion changes. Thanks for your review

💬 JeremyRubin commented on pull request "BIP-348 (OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247#issuecomment-2812906642)
cr ACK [cb0c9f6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247/commits/cb0c9f6389abc1d24b4fb8b80eaaa539acd81f92)

This matches the BIP's semantics, and the implementation is reasonable. Minor nits above to reduce possibility of behavior changes for other users of Schnorr APIs.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296#discussion_r2048996665)
It seems a bit odd to first sort stuff, and then remove it again later on. Just seems like unnecessary churn to touch the same lines several times. Also, sorting with lower case and upper case is "controversial", so my recommendation would be to just drop this commit and focus on the more meaningful changes.