📝 theuni converted_to_draft a pull request: "kernel: Avoid duplicating symbols in the kernel and downstream users"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31807)
The possibility of this happening came up in the discussion here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31158#issuecomment-2635223309, and it turned that we already had a case of it in our code.

tl;dr: Certain symbols when defined in headers may end up existing in both the shared lib and the application using it, leading to subtle bugs. More info can be found [here](https://www.mail-archive.com/cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org/msg503669.html).

The solution is generally to avoid defining static
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Split CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30988#discussion_r1944896725)
Done.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Split CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30988#discussion_r1944904841)
Done.

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#pullrequestreview-2598982998)
Code review ACK f6aa28cf8fad6a3240498b500524bb380855b18e, mul/division code looks correct, testing and fuzzing coverage seems very good

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#discussion_r1944917982)
Thanks, updated.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#issuecomment-2640132380)
Updated per review feedback (thanks!)

> It's good to clarify the description, because the term `NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED` has confused me before into assuming that a node that isn't limited doesn't use the flag. But instead it signals the minimum capability, and `NODE_NETWORK` is added when ready to signal full capability. Too late to rename them.

Well said -- same for me.

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#pullrequestreview-2598861794)
ACK 76af0b4d993c3a5a4a9c37f40d85b9996b38e7a0

Agree with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944888846

and up for litigating the naming of size vs weight.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944832866)
can we at least internally call it weight, even if externally we don't?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944908395)
extra period?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944903683)
nit: can assert number of announcers must be non-0 while we're here.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944911351)
can use wtxid here

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944911842)
can use `wtxid` here

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "TxOrphanage: account for size of orphans and count announcements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31810#discussion_r1944927518)
while we're here could also assert `m_total_announcements >= m_total_orphan_size`

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#discussion_r1944933102)
We should probably try to keep the output lines of `bitcoin-cli -netinfo help` below 80 characters. It doesn't wrap in a nice way.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#discussion_r1944940106)
Don't disagree but that would require reformatting most of the help.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#discussion_r1944942184)
For here kept it shorter than the longest line ("If that argument is passed...")

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "Prepare "Open Transifex translations for v29.0" release step"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31809#pullrequestreview-2599059064)
ACK 2f27c910869e301b7e7669e81a0878da64e49957

I'm not sure how necessary 864386a7444fb5cf16613956ce8bf335f51b67d5 is (has this lead to an issue before?), but the rationale makes sense, and it seems harmless and a minimal change.

I reviewed 2f27c910869e301b7e7669e81a0878da64e49957 without `depends` and with `-DWITH_MULTIPROCESS=OFF` because the sources lists of `bitcoin-qt` and `bitcoin-gui` are currently identical. Diff is the same.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: set build type and per-build-type flags as early as possible":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31711#discussion_r1944952072)
Not critically, no. I just figured it should for consistency. Is there a downside to this?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: set build type and per-build-type flags as early as possible":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31711#issuecomment-2640196265)

> The `CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE` cache variable lost its help string:
>
Ugh, presumably because it's enabling c++ that sets this?

I guess that's a downside, and there may be other side-affects as well. I suppose it'd be safer to do this after enabling c++, which means letting that check be done with the wrong build type. Which realistically shouldn't ever be a problem. Agreed?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: set build type and per-build-type flags as early as possible":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31711#issuecomment-2640206091)
> > The `CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE` cache variable lost its help string:
>
> Ugh, presumably because it's enabling c++ that sets this?
>
> I guess that's a downside, and there may be other side-effects as well. I suppose it'd be safer to do this after enabling c++, which means letting that check be done with the wrong build type. Which realistically shouldn't ever be a problem. Agreed?

Given https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31711#discussion_r1944952072, yes, I agree.