📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "wallet: fix key parsing check for miniscript expressions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29027)
In `ParseScript`, when processing miniscript expressions, the way we check for key parsing error is wrong, the actual code is unreachable because we're checking it into `if (node)` (successful parsing) statement.

💬 martinus commented on pull request "test: doc: follow-up #28368":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#discussion_r1420231148)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to have two calls to `fuzzed_data_provider` in the function call. The problem is that the order of evaluation of function arguments is unspecified: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order
So evaluation order can change at any time. Then the same fuzzing input will produce different results.
I'd move the calls in front of `NewMempoolTransactionInfo`

💬 martinus commented on pull request "test: doc: follow-up #28368":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#discussion_r1420236394)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to have two calls to `fuzzed_data_provider` in the function call. The problem is that the order of evaluation of function arguments is unspecified: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order
So evaluation order can change at any time. Then the same fuzzing input will produce different results.
I'd move the calls in front of `NewMempoolTransactionInfo`

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[26.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29011)

💬 martinus commented on pull request "test: doc: follow-up #28368":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#issuecomment-1846919761)
I can confirm that #29000 is fixed for me in commit 76d0c07ee94b8720964d9d71d462550ecc8b5147.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Add link to needs-release-notes label"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29025)

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: p2p: Detect peer deadlocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29009#pullrequestreview-1772081065)
ACK 9f265d88253ed464413dea5614fa13dea0d8cfd5

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: Pass through transaction locktime and preset input sequences and scripts to CreateTransaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25273#issuecomment-1846934788)
@josibake @furszy want to take another look here.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: doc: follow-up #28368":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#discussion_r1420254059)
Is there an easy way to catch those somehow in CI?

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Release schedule for 26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27758)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Release schedule for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27758#issuecomment-1846942032)
Closing this now, will open a new timeline for 27.0.

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "Release schedule for 27.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29028)
Here is a proposed release schedule for `v27.0`, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. Dates roughly chosen as discussed in the most recent IRC meeting.

## 2024-02-01 🚧
- Open Transifex translations for `v27.0`
- Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
- Finalize and close translations for `v25.0`

## 2024-02-12 🚧 :
- Feature freeze (bug fixes only until release)
- Translation string freeze (no more source language changes until
...

⚠️ fanquake pinned an issue: "Release schedule for 27.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29028)
Here is a proposed release schedule for `v27.0`, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. Dates roughly chosen as discussed in the most recent IRC meeting.

## 2024-02-01 🚧
- Open Transifex translations for `v27.0`
- Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
- Finalize and close translations for `v25.0`

## 2024-02-12 🚧 :
- Feature freeze (bug fixes only until release)
- Translation string freeze (no more source language changes until
...

⚠️ fanquake unpinned an issue: "Release schedule for 26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27758)
Here is a proposed release schedule for `v26.0`, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. I've aimed for a release roughly 6 months after the planned release of `v25.0` (#26549).

## 2023-09-01 :heavy_check_mark:
- Open Transifex translations for `26.0`
- Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
- Finalize and close translations for `24.0`

## 2023-10-08 :heavy_check_mark:
- Feature freeze (bug fixes only until release)
- Translation st
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "[26.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29011#issuecomment-1846951568)
ACK 188e023d2fdab30b4a779a862b2c8b567bb15803

Checked diffs between Rebased-from commit hash and these commits themselves.

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "p2p: adaptive connections services flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#pullrequestreview-1769801940)
Concept ACK. I acknowledge this PR resolves the problem. But the situation is somewhat convoluted in `master` and I am not sure this PR makes it any better. There are multiple ways to determine if we are stale:

1. `ChainstateManager::IsInitialBlockDownload()`: uses `-maxtipage` (default 24h). Once it considers out of IBD, it stays like that regardless of the tip age (why? surely it is possible to lag behind again).

2. `g_initial_block_download_completed`
2.1. Set by `Chainstate::Activat
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1418747776)
nit:
```suggestion
* outbound connection slots or for us to wish to prioritize keeping
```

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1420215938)
Tying together the "extra block-relay-only peers" and the "desirable service flags" seems unnecessary and maybe even wrong, because the conditions should be different. Flipping back to `false` is needed for "desirable service flags", but not for "extra block-relay-only peers" because then this code will be executed more than once:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/1d9da8da309d1dbf9aef15eb8dc43b4a2dc3d309/src/net_processing.cpp#L5268-L5269

Which seems innocent, but is confusing and lo
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1420201385)
naming: "close to tip" is misleading because there is no "tip" involved here. Just the block time is compared to the current time. `IsBlockRecent()` would be better. Or maybe even `size_t BlockAge(const CBlockIndex& index) { return (GetAdjustedTime() - index.Time()) / consensus.PowTargetSpacing(); }`

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1418751438)
What is meant by "the version of the peer" here?