✅ sipa closed a pull request: "p2p: Batch send NOTFOUND messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26486)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Handle invalid hex encoding in ParseHex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25227)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discussion_r1118825254)
nit:
```cpp
const bool ret{m_chainman.m_blockman.ReadBlockFromDisk(block, pindex, m_chainparams.GetConsensus())};
```

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "Update translations for 25.0 string freeze"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27169)
This PR follows our [Release Process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md).

Required to open Transifex translations for 25.0 on 2023-03-01 as it's [planned](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549).

**NOTE.** Translations for the following languages for the latest 24.x Transifex resource have been effectively cancelled/damaged/vandalized:
- German (de) by [nesbonk83](https://www.transifex.com/user/profile/nesbonk83/) on 2023-01-27
- Dutch (nl) by
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Update translations for 25.0 string freeze":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27169#issuecomment-1446432625)
cc @luke-jr @jarolrod @wtogami

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1446439957)
> ## 2023-03-01 construction
>
> - Open Transifex translations for 25.0

See #27169.

---

@GregTonoski
> What is the "23.0" in the sentence: "Finalize and close translations for 23.0"? Isn't it a typo, perhaps?

That's correct. See https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/content/.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "`libbitcoinkernel`: Building `mingw-w64` dll's broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25008)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: Cross-compiling libbitcoinconsensus for Windows fails with DEBUG=1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19772)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Fix various libbitcoinkernel DLL build problems"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27146)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084#discussion_r1118853535)
> Isn't this already the default?

Yep looks like it.

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084)
Combined https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27077 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27083 for the sake of more representative testing.

The [second](https://cirrus-ci.com/build/5852404411793408) run looks promising:
- ["MSan"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4583485717872640) task -- 98.74 %
- ["ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5146435671293952) task -- 100.0 %
- ["multiprocess"](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4864960694583296) task -- 99.35 %
- ["macOS 13 n
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Deduplicate bitcoind and bitcoin-qt init code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150#discussion_r1118857439)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150/checks?check_run_id=11596638131
```bash
src/test/translation_tests.cpp: Expected 0 argument(s) after format string but found 1 argument(s): strprintf(format, arg)
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[24.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26878#issuecomment-1446478907)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26878/commits/784a754aa47ce10c6fd99c09cdfc76ee9bc91652

trivial backports as far as I can see

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Fix various libbitcoinkernel DLL build problems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27146#issuecomment-1446482380)
> This also fixes #19772. (updated PR description).

Confirming that this PR indeed fixes #19772.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1118885979)
In 4db9dc8ac3baa9751702ca575965661e63384692:

Looks like you're introducing these benchmarks, with `BCLog::NET`, only to change them in a later commit (dfb40748911b9553a6e10c8376b032dac36bf938) to `BCLog::VALIDATION`? It's not obvious to me why the category needs changing, but this can probably be re-ordered so we aren't changing the same (newly introduced) lines of code, multiple times in the same PR.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#issuecomment-1446525945)
Rebased on master and prepended an extra commit with a unit test for BlockManager. The test passes on master and the branch without modification, hopefully illustrating that at least some behaviors are not affected.

It's hard to test precisely for the branch's change in a unit test because file-flushing is not something we can really predict or test for (sometimes it happens as soon as we `fwrite()`).

The actual error in issue #2039 comes from an attempt to OPEN a file with `rw` when the
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "init: Return ChainstateLoadStatus::INTERRUPTED when verification was interrupted.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27157#issuecomment-1446567630)
> It might be good to explain and motivate the behaviour change. Calling it "25574 followups" is less useful than, for example, mentioning if the exit code is changed, if a warning will be printed, or if this turns an operation into an error?

I changed the title and expanded the explanation.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "init: Return ChainstateLoadStatus::INTERRUPTED when verification was interrupted.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27157#issuecomment-1446574280)
thanks lgtm ACK c5825e14f8999a8c5f5121027af9e07ac51ab42e

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "rpc, test: remove newline escape sequence from wallet warning fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27138#issuecomment-1446629012)
Code changes and tests look OK to me but I don't understand the motivation, are newlines a problem in RPC responses?

I found a few other similar mechanisms in other modules, dunno if this change should apply to them as well:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82793f1984911774b111117f2e81d5f3b0bbec68/src/warnings.cpp#L55-L57

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82793f1984911774b111117f2e81d5f3b0bbec68/src/validation.cpp#L2565-L2569

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: skip R-value signature grinding for external signers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26032#issuecomment-1446655693)
ACK 807de2cebdad960c2b52185528ca8960ec694f49