Problem: The v31.1 release page links the LevelDB entry to #61 instead of https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/pull/61.
Fix: Use the correct cross-repository PR reference in the v31.1 release notes so the published link points to the LevelDB subtree PR.
Report: https://x.com/maciejsoltysiak/status/2074953263913341270
See https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/31.1 which points to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/61 instead of https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/pull/61
📁 Archived release notes are archived and should not be modified.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35687.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline and AI policy for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| ACK | maflcko |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code><!--meta-tag:bot-skip--></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
I think this should just be changed on the website. We don't link here anyway, and it is clear from the text that this is referring to the subtree repo.
lgtm ACK 68982b872b819055777520b176d7bdb442158349
Seems fine to fix, since this was only recently archived. But it also seems fine to not fix, because there is no link.
The pull description is a bit confusing. It looks like a template (Problem.../Fix...) that was filled in by an LLM. I think the commit message is clear and sufficient, and can be used in the pull description as well.
It looks like a template (Problem.../Fix...) that was filled in by an LLM
That's my style in every PR for long
I think this should just be changed on the website
Shouldn't we do both?
Shouldn't we do both?
Seems to me like the utility here is low, since there are no actual links, and the correct repo is mentioned in the text. I'd follow the suggestion of not touching the archives here.
Thanks for the comments, closing.