✅ fanquake closed an issue: "cmake: Step "-- Looking for C++ include boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp" takes a long time"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30787)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "cmake: scope Boost Test check to `vcpkg`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30822)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Use consteval checked format string in FatalErrorf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#discussion_r1746719104)
Ok, in that case I'd prefer `unsigned count{0};`. I may switch to that, if I have to re-touch.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "util: Use consteval checked format string in FatalErrorf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#discussion_r1746720865)
ok, that's fair, thanks.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "util: Use consteval checked format string in FatalErrorf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#discussion_r1746725437)
I saw your previous response, I was quoting from it in mine. Anyway, you can resolve this comment.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Pin and document TEST_DIR_PATH_ELEMENT, SeedRand::FIXED_SEED"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30748)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2333551090)
Can you rebase this for CMake?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add -ipcbind option to bitcoin-node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30509#issuecomment-2333554993)
re-utACK e225f7cbc3e6842f8e7f1c482c2aacd810e99c1b

I plan to test this with https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/48 but atm the rebases involved are a bit too much headache.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "util: Use consteval checked format string in FatalErrorf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30546#issuecomment-2333558016)
> In tinyformat there is no such thing, so I'll leave this as-is for now.

My motivation is not to reach parity with *tinyformat*, it is to at least cover some of what the prior linter did:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c3af4b1ec3fdb308404199ddd0df5170793a2c39/test/lint/run-lint-format-strings.py#L230-L253

An alternative to making it an error is to simply make invalid chars not count, which is closer to the old behavior. Would that be okay?

If you don't want to bring over at
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: add mocked Sock that can read/write custom data and/or CNetMessages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30205#discussion_r1746733558)
Not a big deal, but diff was already quite large.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Pin and document TEST_DIR_PATH_ELEMENT, SeedRand::FIXED_SEED":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30748#issuecomment-2333560129)
> IMO, `TEST_DIR_PATH_ELEMENT` would be clearer as `TESTS_DIR_NAME` and `"test_common bitcoin"` would be clearer as `"bitcoin tests"` but current names seem fine too.

Looks like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30737 may or may not change the path layout, so any clarifications could in theory be done there.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "ci: failure in win64 unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30792#issuecomment-2333563239)
I wonder if it was an intermittent `wine` related issue, but the output was missing. Similar to something like: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6309656165875712.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: " bench: Remove redundant logging benchmarks "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30790)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: add mocked Sock that can read/write custom data and/or CNetMessages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30205#issuecomment-2333566726)
@vasild it's probably easier to reverse those two commits: first move the implementation out, and then split the class.

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "interfaces: #30697 follow ups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#pullrequestreview-2285497604)
Concept ACK

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1746748313)
How about making the parameter `&&` to avoid accidental copies?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1746787689)
It was deliberately added in other to allow caller to decide whether to move or make a copy see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30697#discussion_r1746002806

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1746797435)
Ah, I see. Please resolve :)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add mocked Sock that can read/write custom data and/or CNetMessages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30205#issuecomment-2333640042)
> @vasild it's probably easier to reverse those two commits: first move the implementation out, and then split the class.

`e995ffa5c3...e7cf8e8fc6`: done, same as before, the cumulative diff is identical before and after:

```sh
$ diff -u <(git diff e59097a0a5~2..e59097a0a5) <(git diff e995ffa5c~3..e995ffa5c)
$ diff -u <(git diff e59097a0a5~2..e59097a0a5) <(git diff e7cf8e8fc~3..e7cf8e8fc)
$
```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: #30697 follow ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30828#discussion_r1746805357)
Thanks