💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1551287725)
I have to admit I'm struggling on these "skip" comments and cases. Every time I read this I have trouble re-deriving the logic.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036759450)
I think merging this temporarily is fine. I think the relevant upstream issue is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bpfcc/+bug/2052813 ? I'm assuming this is going to be resolved soon. Note that the installation issues only seem to be with `x86_64`? Running `apt update && apt install bpfcc-tools` on noble, on an aarch64 machine, currently works. I thought that might be because it doesn't seem to depend on `libbpfcc 0.29.1+ds-1ubuntu4`, but that is also currently available/installable:
``
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788)

💬 m3dwards commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2036776591)
I was also going to block 120,000 but with public nodes. Re-read your initial post and see you are talking about syncing from a local node which then I assume makes the x axis of these charts in seconds, not minutes.

I'll re-run my test connecting to a local node.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "ci: Enable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29804)
Two recommended pull requests:

* Revert fac012c7262f036e9b6f5800e57dcd63870a871c
* Wait for 24.04 GHA image, Move the task over to that image

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036788443)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29804

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1551410174)
add a case where:
1) CONSENSUS-invalid child is propagated to peer
2) low_fee parent is given
3) package evaluation is attempted
4) peer is disconnected

to ensure we're handling invalid tx properly

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#issuecomment-2036791219)
reviewed through c5e196b8e7b610cc9e6321b76fee4f0c45c1448e

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `max_tx_weight` to transaction funding options (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29523#discussion_r1551446237)
Fixed thanks

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `max_tx_weight` to transaction funding options (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29523#issuecomment-2036840812)
Force pushed from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/53ee67de7e388703cb672e67ffaecdde53eb01de to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29523/commits/3a64b3a339fe55c2642369b00a382231871c2838 [compare diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/53ee67de7e388703cb672e67ffaecdde53eb01de..3a64b3a339fe55c2642369b00a382231871c2838)

- Addressed [review comment ](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29523#discussion_r1542667882)
- Rebased on master after #29788

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: use GCC 11 in macOS build env"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29673)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#discussion_r1551480469)
> It seems fine to require clang 18, if someone want to use clang, depends, and D_LIBCPP_HARDENING_MODE.
> Is there anyone other than OSS-Fuzz and a CI config interested in this?

Yea; my main interest is our CIs, fuzzing infra and other external test infra, which is all running LLVM 18 (oss-fuzz soon to be).

🤔 jonasnick reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#pullrequestreview-1979639772)
utACK 4654cc32248d788ac1160ca320ea68d31357d0c9

There should be no changes in libsecp that would require a change in the Bitcoin codebase.

💬 Willtech commented on issue "Signmessage doesn't work with segwit addresses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10542#issuecomment-2037011586)
@adiabat It is supported someone has to work on the feature and produce some programming the repository will publish meeting the consensus

Why do you think the feature was included in the earlier release?

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#discussion_r1551580912)
Ah, makes sense. Pushed an update to address this.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#issuecomment-2037050232)
Pushed update to address comment and simplify `feature_framework_unit_tests.py`; providing output when running with or without test runner. Rebased as well.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1551588051)
Indeed the `Find()` method does not modify any of the members. I tried to make it `const`, but it has to return non-const iterators to the members... :(

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove gmtime*":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29081#issuecomment-2037073226)
cc @theuni you might want to circle back here now that this is unblocked.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1551600727)
Done

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1551600883)
Done