💬 theStack commented on pull request "correct wrong assumptions in the contrib linearize data script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31888#issuecomment-2718026023)
Can you give more context on what problem this PR is trying to solve? Looking at the description and the diff I can't follow, e.g. it's unclear to me what an "incorrect open mode" is.

💬 mprenditore commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#issuecomment-2718067110)
Hello @maflcko @furszy @fanquake
Can this be merged now?

💬 mprenditore commented on pull request "removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2718070286)
@furszy @pablomartin4btc
Can this be merged or there's still something missing?

📝 soldate opened a pull request: "pull request test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32040)
Testing

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Doc: add a comment referencing past vulnerability next to where it was fixed"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30538#pullrequestreview-2678760728)
Code review ACK eb0724f0dee307d6d14e47ebd3077b7ffd50f507. No changes since last review other than rebase

📝 soldate converted_to_draft a pull request: "pull request test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32040)
Testing

✅ soldate closed a pull request: "pull request test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32040)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "pull request test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32040)
Testing

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "Require sqlite when building the wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31961#issuecomment-2718133961)
Built with and without depends and all was working

> I initially considered dropping the `NO_WALLET` option from depends. Most other depends packages refer to the library name rather than the feature, so this seemed better than dropping `NO_SQLITE`.
>
> However it could break automations (and habits) of anyone who tries to build the node without wallet support. So I ended up dropping `NO_SQLITE` and keeping `NO_WALLET`.

As someone who doesn't have those habits my vote would have been
...

💬 hodlinator commented on issue "29.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32026#issuecomment-2718134999)
Thanks for working on this!

> ... After running through the steps in this guide, you are encouraged to do your own testing.
>
> This can be as simple as testing the same features in this guide but trying it a different way. ...

These seem like they belong in the same paragraph? Either replace "This" with "Your own testing" or bring them together.

> introduces ephemeral dust to improve transaction packaging

Ephemeral dust transactions should be combined with a transaction that spends from the
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Require sqlite when building the wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31961#issuecomment-2718135064)
Pushed the two simplifications.

@hebasto the `NO_WALLET` option for depends has existed since at least v0.11: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/v0.11.0/depends

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "build: bump CLIENT_VERSION_MAJOR to 29"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32041)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "build: bump CLIENT_VERSION_MAJOR to 29":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32041#issuecomment-2718194037)
Missed for branch-off, my bad. Thanks @fanquake

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "build: bump CLIENT_VERSION_MAJOR to 29"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32041#pullrequestreview-2678861797)
ACK a3f0e9a4336a57440615efb352793fe131079487

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: bump CLIENT_VERSION_MAJOR to 29"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32041)

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "Require sqlite when building the wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31961#issuecomment-2718208216)
ACK 36b6f36ac4724cb2c9ed0e25314c3bbf55e4ebb8

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Fee Estimation via Fee rate Forecasters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30157#discussion_r1991732669)
Ok, it's just that you are using `MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET + 1` as the positional argument for `Confirmation target %s` which doesn't seem right, but maybe I'm mistaken.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Fee Estimation via Fee rate Forecasters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30157#discussion_r1991741915)
Oh, you mean to say 25th percentile of `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT`

⚠️ fjahr opened an issue: "Script Validation Performance Improvement Tracking Issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32042)
This is a tracking issue for a couple of improvements targeting performance of script validation that are closely related. The topic was [discussed at CoreDev in February 2025](https://gist.github.com/fjahr/b020a16255f044ef62c48e9adf18881a) as well.

Benchmarking
- Pending: Benchmarking across different available threads ([using benchkit](https://github.com/bitcoin-dev-tools/benchkit))
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689

Schnorr Batch Validation
- https://github.com/bitcoin-core/sec
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: Add deterministic-unittest-coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31901#issuecomment-2718268595)
Anything left to do here?

The goal here is to add the contrib tool, not to fix all non-determinism in all tests. Especially, if they happen only on macOS, I can't really fix it myself anyway, since I don't have macOS. Ideally this is done in a follow-up.

There are three acks, two of which indicate to have tested the changes.