💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: Add implicit constructor for `_hex` to `uint256` and remove `consteval_ctor`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31991#discussion_r1981194220)
Thanks, bumped it from `17.6` to [`17.6.18`](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/releases/2022/release-notes-v17.6#17618--visual-studio-2022-version-17618)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[28.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31648)

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2700627422)
@BitcoinErrorLog @melvincarvalho

> I encourage more general, conceptual discussion to happen on [Delving Bitcoin](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) and not on this pull request.

In case you want to read other developers evaluation of CTV and its uses cases here are a couple of links:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_Uses

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Source code mapping for debugger has changed since cmake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31204#issuecomment-2700638411)
It's not clear if this is something that needs to be fixed, (is a regression), or if it's a behaviour change that needs to be documented in some way, (in the developer notes), or something else? cc @hebasto

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "build: ccache doesn't hit across build dirs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31994)
This has regressed since 28.x. Opening an issue to track given #30861 has been closed. Tagged for 29.x because ideally this would be fixed, and any fix could be backported.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Split CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30988#discussion_r1981222955)
If SendBytes() is called from outside the loop then the lock could be held by something else inside the loop, including another call to SendBytes (ie from EventReadyToSend)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "guix: Unable to reproduce macOS SDK tarball on Fedora 40":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31873#issuecomment-2700668553)
@davidgumberg did you follow up any further here?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Split CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30988#discussion_r1981233604)
Oh wait. AssertLockNotHeld only applies to the caller? It doesn't require that the mutex is open on all threads and available to lock?

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Wallet passpharse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "wallet: wrong balance and crash after reorg and unclean shutdown":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31824#issuecomment-2700677408)
Marking this as closed-by #30221 given the comments there.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#issuecomment-2700679622)
> > Automatically generated by extract_strings_qt
>
> Yes, but it's committed, so shouldn't we update or regenerate it now?

Sure. It will regenerated during the [release process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#before-branch-off), but not for 29.0 as we are behind the string freeze.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Fuzz: Runtime errors when running fuzz tests on MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31591#issuecomment-2700685226)
@Prabhat1308 is your issue solved after using the new steps in #31954?

💬 fanquake commented on issue "`DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MAXFEE` is 0.1 ₿":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31716#issuecomment-2700692797)
@achow101 @furszy @theStack any thoughts here?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[WIP] refactor: migrate unit tests to Google Test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31988#issuecomment-2700694714)
Cool proof of concept, eventually we might want to give another testing framework a try, but not sure we're there yet.
The limitations of Boost bothers me a bit every time I'm using it, but not enough to embark on a huge refactor yet.
Maybe it would still be easier to strangle out the old one by having two options temporarily - or to have an api with minimal changes compared to current one, supporting both.
Not sure, but my impression was that the pain isn't great enough yet.
But if you're p
...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "test: different error message fails rpc_signer.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31506#issuecomment-2700697810)
> cc @hebasto

@hebasto or maybe @achow101 can you take a look here? Seems like the bisect is pointing to breakage when boost::process was swapped out.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Drop `CCheckQueue::nIdle`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26776#issuecomment-2700703633)
Benchmarked in https://github.com/bitcoin-dev-tools/benchcoin/pull/140.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "test: different error message fails rpc_signer.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31506#issuecomment-2700717633)
> > cc [@hebasto](https://github.com/hebasto)
>
> [@hebasto](https://github.com/hebasto) or maybe [@achow101](https://github.com/achow101) can you take a look here? Seems like the bisect is pointing to breakage when boost::process was swapped out.

I'm working on `src/util/subprocess.h` code.

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#pullrequestreview-2660913860)
Verified all the values for mainnet after syncing with `-assumevalid=0`. Also ran the headers sync script and got the same results.
```
du -csh ./blocks ./chainstate
681G ./blocks
11G ./chainstate
692G total
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r1981280478)
Oh sorry, I get it now, thanks. For some reason (I think I had just been reviewing the next section dealing with disconnecting the tip) I was confusing `pindex` for the chain tip here. I don't really have any doc suggestions, so can be marked as resolved.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[WIP] refactor: migrate unit tests to Google Test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31988#issuecomment-2700746683)
> #### Motivation
>
> By migrating the unit tests from Boost to Google Test we can increase the chances of removing all dependencies from Boost in the future.

Depending on Boost.Test for test-only code does not seem like a problem to me.