💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "doc: Improve `dependencies.md`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895#discussion_r2079815634)
nit: Feels weird to remove "Version used" column for runtime dependencies as part of the second commit (splitting build/runtime dependencies), but keeping them for buildtime dependencies until the end.

👍 theuni approved a pull request: "contrib: remove bdb exception from FORTIFY check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32448#pullrequestreview-2825363625)
utACK f9dfe8d5e0d3f628659702ab781b7919505c829f

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: negate signature-s using libsecp256k1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32436#discussion_r2079853332)
As another reference and explanation, see also the corresponding serialization implementation in the functional test framework: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/66c968b4b4a98b1d476cb79b0dd2f6b09420c945/test/functional/test_framework/key.py#L184-L188

💬 AlexSQY commented on pull request "CAT in Tapscript (BIP-347)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247#issuecomment-2863299679)
@EthanHeilman , thanks for the feedback.
I understand this combination should be discouraged.
My concern, perhaps not justified, was about this negative case not being documented/tested, thus wondering about a potential edge case.
Found out those tapscript test cases but I do not know if "not set" is exactly same as "set to false" (all those variables set to false by default?):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247/files#diff-ef0159635ee0fee8864cd9570a04337cabb63e9c49a9e96d7b746194e
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: negate signature-s using libsecp256k1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32436#issuecomment-2863301427)
Thanks for the reviews! Applied your patch @laanwj and added a comment about the secp256k1 negation function usage.

> Conceptually, I'm in agreement with the replacement of custom negation code by using the one from secp256k1. Though I was a little surprised to note that git grep of this function doesn't lead to any actual usages of the function besides the tests & secp256k1_ec_privkey_negate function that too doesn't seem to be used elsewhere.

It would have been used for the BIP 151 (v2 t
...

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "Wallet: Fix Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in AddWalletDescriptor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344#pullrequestreview-2825377026)
It would be good to describe the steps to replicate the issue via RPC.
Including a range in a non-ranged descriptor import should cause the process to fail before reaching the wallet descriptor update function.

This step-by-step description would also allow us to convert the unit test into a functional test, which would be ideal, as it's simpler to maintain.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "32-bit Linux: build flags lost with depends & overriden CC(X)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28096)

💬 EthanHeilman commented on pull request "CAT in Tapscript (BIP-347)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247#issuecomment-2863344633)
@AlexSQY I see your point. Let me see if there is anything that can be done to ensure it is never the case that `OP_CAT = False && DISCOURAGE_OP_CAT = False` since that should never happen outside of tests.

The behavior is what you see in that test is the expected behavior for `DISCOURAGE_OP_CAT = False` and `OP_CAT = False`,
since `OP_CAT = False` the CAT opcode is an OP_SUCCESS so it returns success (`OK`).

@0xBEEFCAF3 What do you think?

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2079888041)
I think it would be better to consume from a range here and below. `MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE` is large (10000) so the fuzzer ends up consuming the remaining bytes in the data provider at this line.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "qt, wallet: Convert uint256 to Txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32238#issuecomment-2863362683)
re-ACK 0671d66a8ee07584fab6f1ddaaa188c6a4ac25c1, no changes since 65fcfbb2b38bef20a58daa6c828c51890180611d except rebase.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "cmake: Respect user-provided configuration-specific flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32356#pullrequestreview-2825385905)
Code review ACK edde96376a2961dec3730331b3d171ddf972589f

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "cmake: Respect user-provided configuration-specific flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32356#discussion_r2079862300)
In commit "cmake: Respect user-provided configuration-specific flags" (edde96376a2961dec3730331b3d171ddf972589f)

Would be good for the comment here to note that this needs to be called before the project() command otherwise the list will include variables not actually set by the user. (I wouldn't have known that unless I saw the discussion at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32356#discussion_r2075396465)

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "test: refactor: negate signature-s using libsecp256k1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32436#pullrequestreview-2825454444)
Code review ACK 1ee698fde2e8652d8eb083749edb8029c003b8db

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "contrib: remove bdb exception from FORTIFY check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32448#pullrequestreview-2825462550)
Code review ACK f9dfe8d5e0d3f628659702ab781b7919505c829f

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#pullrequestreview-2825308443)
ACK 0ac19a98f329fe8952f394509a7a29775ab805b0 with a nit and another suggestion


The size limit check above the sigops check also underestimates the block size because it does not include the witness.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2079816983)
nit: maybe be specific.
```suggestion
// This underestimates the number of sigops, because unlike ConnectBlock it does not count the witness sigops and p2sh sigops:

```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2079904329)
I think it's okay to have this check here to catch those violations early.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "cmake: Respect user-provided configuration-specific flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32356)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "fees: rpc: `estimatesmartfee` now returns a fee rate estimate during low network activity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32395#issuecomment-2863404137)
Friendly ping @glozow @willcl-ark @instagibbs

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "build: let CMake determine the year":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32445#issuecomment-2863424559)
> When someone builds from a tarball that is more than a year old, this will use the current year instead of the year of the release. Is that a valid use case?

Not only with tarballs, it's true for any non-guix build, also from an old git commit.