[bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #24615: guix: Map guix store prefixes to /usr for cross-architecture reproducibility of linux binaries (master...guix-cross-arch-repro) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24615
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25536: contrib: dedup `get_witness_script` helper in signet miner (master...202207-contrib-signet-miner_dedup_get_witness_script) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25536
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25535: test: pass `dustrelayfee=0` option for tests using dust (instead of `acceptnonstdtxn=1`) (master...202207-test-replace_acceptnonstdxn_with_dustrelayfee_option) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25535
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25471: rpc: Disallow gettxoutsetinfo queries for a specific block with `use_index=false` (master...202206_gettxoutsetinfo_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25471
I care about the health of mempool/policy and Bitcoin Core, and I take it very seriously so I'm happy to be held to a high standard. All of the work we do is entirely in public, so you are always free to audit me, tell me I've done something wrong, or request I prioritize other things. If you want to test my knowledge or preparedness, please let me know what the standard is beforehand and apply it equally to everyone in the same role.
there is no bitcoin core organization
i want to spend time on a beach with a pina colada -- however, process work is a part of the development of the "bitcoin core organization", so you can't just stick your head in the sand and ignore it, especially when it comes to doling out commit access
i am not sure if bitcoin core needs another person with commit access with already 6 but always felt it needs more reviewers looking at open pull requests
b10c: its a good point and maintainers funded by different orgs is always better for a project like bitcoin core
She has been actively working on Bitcoin Core for > 2 years. Predominately in the mempool & validation code.
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25511: test: non-positive integer value to `-peertimeout` should throw an error (master...2022-06-peertimeout-positive-integer) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25511
bitcoin/master b6cf0f8 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25511: test: non-positive integer value to `-peertim...
bitcoin/master d22bd54 brunoerg: test: passing a non-positive integer value to `-peertimeout` should throw ...
well, bips is the thing that can be argued to belong under bitcoin itself
jamesob: ideally everything should be under bitcoin-core, that said, the bitcoin/bitcoin repo name is hardcoded in so many places
[bitcoin] brunoerg opened pull request #25511: test: non-positive integer value to `-peertimeout` should throw an error (master...2022-06-peertimeout-positive-integer) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25511
Random question: was there ever a rationale for the bitcoin/bitcoin-core github org split? I.e. why isn't everything just under one or the other?
bitcoin/master dc375e5 fanquake: Update minisketch subtree to latest master
bitcoin/master 28a28a0 fanquake: Squashed 'src/minisketch/' changes from 7eeb778fef..47f0a2d26f
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25503: test: pass `datacarriersize` option for tests using large outputs (instead of `acceptnonstdtxn`) (master...202206-test-replace_acceptnonstdxn_with_datacarriersize_option) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25503