💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: group outputs only once, decouple it from Coin Selection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25806#issuecomment-1454159231)
Rebased it due silent merge conflicts with #26889.
Ready to go now.

📝 hernanmarino opened a pull request: "Fixed typos in comments to make linter happy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27197)
While working on a different PR, I stumbled upon and fixed a couple of typos being reported by the linter.

👋 hernanmarino's pull request is ready for review: "Fixed typos in comments to make linter happy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27197)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "util: add missing include and fix function signature":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27192#discussion_r1125077264)
Reordered. I think this change is simple enough for manual review :)

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1123812481)
I’d probably prefer using `.value()` for new code I’d write, but the asterisk-variant seems prevalent throughout this code.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1123811383)
Yes, agreed using an optional would be more explicit, however handling the optional return value would touch a bunch of lines here, and given that the result should never be empty unless something went wrong or the function got called with an empty `txids` input, I feel it’s a bit of a cosmetic improvement here.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1123823270)
Thanks, will consider, change but feel it’s okay at this time.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1123754749)
I’ve removed the `reserve(…)` call here.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1123819758)
As above with `GetIterVec()`, an empty vector is not a valid outcome for a call, so I tend to leave as is.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1124908789)
Updated

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1125071450)
Thanks, I’m not going to interfere here, because outpoints are tiny anyway, and it seems more readable without the move or constructor.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1124956187)
Thanks that’s much nicer

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1125071911)
I’ll have to revisit this one.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1124966759)
It seems to me that if we don’t use the result of `find`, it’s clearer that we just care about whether a key is present instead of where in the sequence it appears

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#issuecomment-1454249283)
Rebased on latest version of #27021

👍 yahiheb approved a pull request: "Fix typos in comments to make linter happy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27197)

👍 kristapsk approved a pull request: "Fix typos in comments to make linter happy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27197)
utACK 987f1bb41c0a8c54422066e10d1c63e19c4df66d

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Fix typos in comments to make linter happy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27197)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "util: add missing include and fix function signature"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27192)
ACK 8847ce44e0713350a6d3524f62eaeb10ba548bae

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: add missing include and fix function signature"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27192)