Skip to content

Fix inconsistent naming in RFCs and update the status of some RFCs #447

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zhangsoledad
Copy link
Member

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.

@zhangsoledad zhangsoledad requested review from a team and xxuejie as code owners March 12, 2025 15:27
@zhangsoledad zhangsoledad requested a review from doitian March 12, 2025 15:27
@XuJiandong
Copy link
Contributor

XuJiandong commented Mar 13, 2025

In older documents or other sources, some references still use outdated naming conventions.
Can we provide a mapping table, such as:

Edition CKB2023 → CKB Edition Meepo (on 2024/??)

@zhangsoledad
Copy link
Member Author

In older documents or other sources, some references still use outdated naming conventions. Can we provide a mapping table, such as:

Edition CKB2023 → CKB Edition Meepo (on 2024/??)

https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs/blob/5a0e339bcbd88f6ca283cd57a13b1c808503313f/rfcs/0053-ckb-hardfork/0053-ckb-hardfork.md#historical-editions @XuJiandong

@xxuejie
Copy link
Contributor

xxuejie commented Mar 19, 2025

Just being curious: why do we name it as CKB Edition Meepo, I feel that CKB Meepo Edition is more like proper English grammar

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