💬 furszy commented on pull request "bench: add support for custom data directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#discussion_r1842899557)
Done in #31291

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[refactor] Cleanup BlockAssembler mempool usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28843#issuecomment-2477429522)
ACK 192dac1d3370edd579db235d69c034726f37c8da

📝 casey opened a pull request: "Add `contrib/justfile` containing useful development workflow commands."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31292)
Add `contrib/justfile` containing useful development workflow commands.

Just recipes can be run by symlinking `contrib/justfile` into the repository root:

ln -s contrib/justfile justfile

And running:

just RECIPE

From any subdirectory.

Also add `/justfile` to `.gitignore`, to ignore the symlink into the repository root.

`just` is command runner with make-like syntax. It is not a build system, and only serves as convenient way of saving and running commands. It is avai
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1842903990)
I have also addressed this when removing

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "benchmark: Improve SipHash_32b accuracy to avoid potential optimization issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30349#issuecomment-2477439889)
ACK 42066f45ff5d48e78a317eda63c035809bd657c6

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "ci: skip Github CI on branch pushes for forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30487#issuecomment-2477449008)
ACK 8610bcef9d030013f9e36cffe0c58dd2cfe85d66

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "[refactor] Cleanup BlockAssembler mempool usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28843)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1842913498)
Not sure if this comment only applied before https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1842870647. But I think this is not currently the case.

Here we are only adding the parents. Leaving `fanout=true` triggers adding the actual transaction `RelayTransaction` was called with in the following `if (fanout)` block.

We could also add it here, but it would involve adding another boolean to skip the `if (fanout)` block, since we need to populate `m_tx_inventory_to_send` with data
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add `contrib/justfile` containing useful development workflow commands.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31292#issuecomment-2477456396)
Concept NACK

We generally do not include files that are specific to particular people's development environments such as IDE configurations, and this seems to be pretty close to that kind of thing. Nor do we add to our gitignore files that are specific to particular people's workflows as those should be part of their global .gitignore.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "benchmark: Improve SipHash_32b accuracy to avoid potential optimization issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30349)

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "test: add global time to place exec tests within the same dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31291#pullrequestreview-2437248597)
ACK ce0645c312d0395627f1497140108cfe91473bc2

> Groups all tests executed within each binary call under a single directory prefixed by the current time. Replicating the function test framework behavior.

It makes sense to me. I'll play a bit with it just to see how it looks.

💬 casey commented on pull request "Add `contrib/justfile` containing useful development workflow commands.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31292#issuecomment-2477461070)
> Concept NACK
>
> We generally do not include files that are specific to particular people's development environments such as IDE configurations, and this seems to be pretty close to that kind of thing. Nor do we add to our gitignore files that are specific to particular people's workflows as those should be part of their global .gitignore.

Fair enough! I will say that I think this is generally useful to anyone who works in the terminal, and serves as a generally useful source of document
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: Fix RANDOM_CTX_SEED use with parallel tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30737#issuecomment-2477467410)
> I think the issue in the fuzz tests still persists.

That's correct. Fuzzing was not my main concern, but could maybe resurrect that part of this PR.

I've rebased on current master and re-pushed the branch I had deleted, but am not allowed to reopen this one.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...hodlinator:bitcoin:2024-08/RANDOM_CTX_SEED_jobs_fix_alt

Are you still against passing through RANDOM_CTX_SEED in the test_runner.py? In that case I can drop that commit.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: fix m_best_header tracking and BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD assignment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30666#issuecomment-2477470155)
ACK 0bd53d913c1c2ffd2d0779f01bc51c81537b6992

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "ci: skip Github CI on branch pushes for forks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30487)

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add optional blockhash to waitfornewblock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30635#discussion_r1842929586)
Why do all this? Can't we just compare `hash` to `block` and return?

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "Fee Estimation via Fee rate Forecasters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30157#pullrequestreview-2437270515)
Thanks for your conceptual review, @murchandamus and @vasild. There's also another review by @remyers in the tracking issue: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30392#issuecomment-2410695144.

I have updated this PR based on feedback from #30391 and in-person conversations:

1. I am now using the newly introduced `FeeFrac` datatype, which does not lose precision like `CFeeRate`.
2. Updated the `CalculatePercentile` function to return a monotonically decreasing estimate for high and lo
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Header inconsistency after invalidate/reconsider block"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26245)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "validation: fix m_best_header tracking and BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD assignment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30666)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "BlockAssembler: return selected packages virtual size and fee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30391#issuecomment-2477493180)
> So there are clients that this could break.

@Sjors, could you clarify your coment?
Which clients would this affect?