Fix inconsistent naming in RFCs and update the status of some RFCs #447
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
In older documents or other sources, some references still use outdated naming conventions. Edition CKB2023 → CKB Edition Meepo (on 2024/??) |
Member
Author
https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs/blob/5a0e339bcbd88f6ca283cd57a13b1c808503313f/rfcs/0053-ckb-hardfork/0053-ckb-hardfork.md#historical-editions @XuJiandong |
Contributor
|
Just being curious: why do we name it as |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR unifies the naming conventions across multiple RFCs, ensuring consistency in RFCs. Additionally, it updates the status of several RFCs to reflect their latest status.