💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#discussion_r1138393045)
nice

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Correct poor grammar in wallet synchronization warning.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/720#issuecomment-1471636284)
> If these files aren't changed then the translations would break, wouldn't they?

The `bitcon_<LANGUAGE>.ts` translation files are updated by [`bitcoin-maintainer-tools/update-translations.py`](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/blob/main/update-translations.py) tool. For example, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27251.

Updating `<source>` strings without updating `<translation>` ones do break translations.

💬 rebroad commented on pull request "Correct poor grammar in wallet synchronization warning.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/720#issuecomment-1471643050)
The meaning hasn't changed though, just the grammar, so the existing
translations in other languages are still good. Can the existing
translations be retained if I delete the translation file changes?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, 09:55 Hennadii Stepanov, ***@***.***>
wrote:

> If these files aren't changed then the translations would break, wouldn't
> they?
>
> The bitcon_<LANGUAGE>.ts translation files are updated by
> bitcoin-maintainer-tools/update-translations.py
> <https://github.com/bitcoin-core/
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Correct poor grammar in wallet synchronization warning.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/720#issuecomment-1471659745)
> Can the existing translations be retained if I delete the translation file changes?

If the suggested changes to the `src/qt/forms/modaloverlay.ui` file will be merged, during the next translation cycle translators will see the updated strings being marked as "untranslated". Therefore, they have to translate them again, which is, actually, an additional burden. And `*.ts` translation files will be updated regardless of your manual update. Therefore, it looks just pointless.

💬 rebroad commented on pull request "Correct poor grammar in wallet synchronization warning.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/720#issuecomment-1471662821)
So, how are we supposed to change just the English language in a change
without affecting other languages?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, 10:09 Hennadii Stepanov, ***@***.***>
wrote:

> Can the existing translations be retained if I delete the translation file
> changes?
>
> If the suggested changes to the src/qt/forms/modaloverlay.ui file will be
> merged, during the next translation cycle translators will see the updated
> strings being marked as "untranslated". Therefore, they have to translate
> them
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#issuecomment-1471668768)
Also, tested with my diff from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26347#discussion_r1133856319

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Updated copyright years":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27267#issuecomment-1471693836)
The tool is detailed here, although it doesn't mention when it's actioned: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/devtools/README.md#copyright_headerpy

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: rpc: remove ParseNonRFCJSONValue()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27256#discussion_r1138447900)
missing check of value

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Correct poor grammar in wallet synchronization warning.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/720#issuecomment-1471760745)
> So, how are we supposed to change just the English language in a change without affecting other languages?

I don't think it is feasible with the current translation process/tools.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: rpc: remove ParseNonRFCJSONValue()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27256#discussion_r1138500030)
Left it out because I didn't want to test `AmountFromValue()` here, but I could indeed still just check the `double` value directly. Fixed, thanks.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: rpc: remove ParseNonRFCJSONValue()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27256#discussion_r1138501819)
wrong commit

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "reduce cs_main scope, guard block index 'nFile' under a local mutex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27006#discussion_r1138503518)
Starting to feel like a struct for those 3 members would be appropriate

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Blocks remaining falls offscreen with dutch language setting.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/721#issuecomment-1471786320)
> Make message re-sizeable.

You can still resize the main window from 
to 

A few additional notes.

> ### What version of Bitcoin Core are you using?
>
> 22.0

I assume you downloaded your Bitcoin Core from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/

If so, please be
...

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: rpc: remove ParseNonRFCJSONValue()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27256#discussion_r1138513576)
rush, I must not. fixed - sorry.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#discussion_r1138537375)
Yeah, it didn't matter since the computation is trivial and the bounds more loose for Tapscript anyways. But your suggestion is clearer indeed, taken, thanks.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#discussion_r1138538592)
Meh. Done.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#discussion_r1138541531)
Hmm i thought i was following the style used elsewhere, but i must have dreamed it. Done.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#discussion_r1138548620)
Hmm that's a good point re unsigned type, but it needs to be able to return negative values. So i guess it's up to the caller to make sure they don't call this with `b > a` if `a` is unsigned, as with regular substractions?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Pointer Authentication and Branch Target Identification for aarch64 Linux (Guix)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24123#issuecomment-1471855629)
Rebased past #27153.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Use LTO to build releases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25391#issuecomment-1471858282)
Rebased past #27153.