Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23065 #6099

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vijaydasmp
Copy link

bitcoin backports

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22155, 22507, 22371 Jul 6, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp23_100_1 branch 3 times, most recently from 9881474 to c50dd0a Compare July 19, 2024 15:48
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22155, 22507, 22371 backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22507, 22155, 22371 Jul 20, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp23_100_1 branch 2 times, most recently from 7b66f1f to 0c23f20 Compare July 20, 2024 09:47
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22507, 22155, 22371 backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22507 Jul 20, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 7, 2024

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 4, 2024

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22006, 22507 backport: Merge bitcoin#22507 Sep 6, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22507 backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23591, 24153, 23002, 22677, 23547, 23065, 23723, 23642 Sep 6, 2024
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp23_100_1 branch 7 times, most recently from 04076d6 to a587c2b Compare September 8, 2024 12:21
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp force-pushed the bp23_100_1 branch 5 times, most recently from f5feb15 to e58b893 Compare September 11, 2024 14:56
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23591, 24153, 23002, 22677, 23547, 23065, 23723, 23642 backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23591, 24153, 23002, 22677, 23547, 23065, 23723, 23642, 21679 Sep 15, 2024
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23591, 24153, 23002, 22677, 23547, 23065, 23723, 23642, 21679 backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 22677, 23065, 23642, 21679 Oct 5, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 5, 2024

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

laanwj and others added 2 commits November 24, 2024 21:07
….sigs repo

fafade9 doc: Adjust commit message template for the guix.sigs repo (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Seems to be the most common template used, so adjust this here, too.

ACKs for top commit:
  laanwj:
    ACK fafade9
  hebasto:
    re-ACK fafade9

Tree-SHA512: 20477d14ecfad94f3b28b94786a4c0d98df539360d0c1deefa94766064a7d0700c849e54d6b251f922e135fcfa964ada0c724090f7f92b459ea39f7c3ca8c65d
c5b36b1 Mempool Update Cut-Through Optimization (Jeremy Rubin)
c49daf9 [TESTS] Increase limitancestorcount in tournament RPC test to showcase improved algorithm (Jeremy Rubin)

Pull request description:

  Often when we're updating mempool entries we update entries that we ultimately end up removing the updated entries shortly thereafter. This patch makes it so that we filter for such entries a bit earlier in processing, which yields a mild improvement for these cases, and is negligible overhead otherwise.

  There's potential for a better -- but more sophisticated -- algorithm that can be used taking advantage of epochs, but I figured it is better to do something that is simple and works first and upgrade it later as the other epoch mempool work proceeds as it makes the patches for the epoch algorithm simpler to understand, so you can consider this as preparatory work. It could either go in now if it is not controversial, or we could wait until the other patch is ready to go.

ACKs for top commit:
  instagibbs:
    reACK c5b36b1
  sipa:
    utACK c5b36b1
  mzumsande:
    Code Review ACK c5b36b1

Tree-SHA512: 78b16864f77a637d8a68a65e23c019a9757d8b2243486728ef601d212ae482f6084cf8e69d810958c356f1803178046e4697207ba40d6d10529ca57de647fae6
@vijaydasmp vijaydasmp changed the title backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 22677, 23065, 23642, 21679 backport: Merge bitcoin#22507, 21464, 23065 Nov 24, 2024
d96b000 Make GUI UTXO lock/unlock persistent (Samuel Dobson)
077154f Add release note for lockunspent change (Samuel Dobson)
719ae92 Update lockunspent tests for lock persistence (Samuel Dobson)
f13fc16 Allow lockunspent to store the lock in the wallet DB (Samuel Dobson)
c527893 Allow locked UTXOs to be store in the wallet database (Samuel Dobson)

Pull request description:

  Addresses and closes bitcoin#22368

  As per that issue (and its predecessor bitcoin#14907), there seems to be some interest in allowing unspent outputs to be locked persistently. This PR does so by adding a flag to lockunspent to store the change in the wallet database. Defaults to false, so there is no change in default behaviour.

  Edit: GUI commit changes default behaviour. UTXOs locked/unlocked via the GUI are now persistent.

ACKs for top commit:
  achow101:
    ACK d96b000
  kristapsk:
    ACK d96b000
  lsilva01:
    Tested ACK bitcoin@d96b000 on Ubuntu 20.04
  prayank23:
    ACK bitcoin@d96b000

Tree-SHA512: 957a5bbfe7f763036796906ccb1598feb6c14c5975838be1ba24a198840bf59e83233165cb112cebae909b6b25bf27275a4d7fa425923ef6c788ff671d7a89a8
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants