📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused circular include dependency from validation.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28770)
Also, sort includes

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Update `qt` package up to 5.15.11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28769#issuecomment-1789305628)
Guix builds:
```
x86_64
f3d6ac10842f48884b36d704cc4303ee001197a5c39f7d65116324ab919f4497 guix-build-8047bb6feaa9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
a651622edbca1c9badf7f4018296639929f9553c257bc2cdb464c240e5ab29d2 guix-build-8047bb6feaa9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8047bb6feaa9-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
6ad8004e3739c51380032a411f43054a7768188033bcd9534ebb165b1755819d guix-build-8047bb6feaa9/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8047bb6feaa9-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
aaecf84b3fa
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Cleanup accidental encryption keys in watchonly wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28724#discussion_r1379059681)
The lock is already being held from the top of the function.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused circular include dependency from validation.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28770#issuecomment-1789311030)
Ack fa7d31910ab181c7e0e5f1fa1e23a49e208aec2a

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused circular include dependency from validation.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28770#pullrequestreview-1708639244)
ACK fa7d31910ab181c7e0e5f1fa1e23a49e208aec2a

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: [tidy] modernize-type-traits":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28664#discussion_r1379069331)
I don't think it is possible to exclude headers via bear, as they are not listed as translation unit anyway

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "refactors for subpackage evaluation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#pullrequestreview-1708690726)
I started going down the path of making Package a class and these member functions, but it touched hundreds of loc and made it really awkward to try to use it within AncestorPackage when we're checking if subsets are sorted

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1379095337)
ok

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1379095637)
fixed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1379095561)
I made it iswellformedpackage

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify CTxMempool/BlockAssembler fields, remove some external mapTx access":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28391#discussion_r1379219584)
Yes, as I understand it that is what is checked in the code block above, so this should always hold.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify CTxMempool/BlockAssembler fields, remove some external mapTx access":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28391#discussion_r1379220432)
Huh, yeah. That is more straight forward.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify CTxMempool/BlockAssembler fields, remove some external mapTx access":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28391#issuecomment-1789568785)
Thank you for the review @ismaelsadeeq!

Updated e579bb98ba8977af284ba6914ffb2b1da7f34cdd -> 105a0f4db4ffdc25d3ad30300c949d46d5d8e647 ([simplifyMemPoolInteractions_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_3) -> [simplifyMemPoolInteractions_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_4), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_3..simplifyMemPoolInteractions_4))

* Added commit 105
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "p2p: peer connection bug fixes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-1789583586)
Maybe mark as draft while CI is red?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Fee Estimator updates from Validation Interface/CScheduler thread":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368#issuecomment-1789598015)
Seems like with the changes here, the `policy/fees` can be removed the kernel library. If you want to, you can integrate this [one-line commit](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commit/32846141df1a2e110f84f3244d5e98626d379185), otherwise I'll make a tiny follow up.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: peer connection bug fixes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-1789598397)
Done. Note that only the latest push is red. I can push a version that is green, but have been rebasing on #28155 that I reckon will be merged soon, and adding missing test coverage. Concept ACKs on fixing the bugs would be encouraging 😃

📝 jonatack converted_to_draft a pull request: "p2p: peer connection bug fixes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248)
This pull fixes several peer connection bugs in our p2p code, along with the logging that uncovered them:

1. Fix detection of inbound peer connections in `GetAddedNodeInfo`.

2. Fix addnode CJDNS peers not detected in `GetAddedNodeInfo`, causing `ThreadOpenAddedConnections` to continually retry to connect to them and RPC `getaddednodeinfo` incorrectly showing them as not connected.

3. Fix `ThreadOpenConnections` not detecting inbound CJDNS connections and making automatic outbound connec
...

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused circular include dependency from validation.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28770#pullrequestreview-1709014758)
ACK fa7d31910ab181c7e0e5f1fa1e23a49e208aec2a

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: peer connection bug fixes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-1789612236)
Note also, that item 7 in the PR description involves a regression in v26.x.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28765#pullrequestreview-1709034021)
Approach ACK