Skip to content

Rename Asset Hub to Polkadot / Westend Hub #572

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
May 13, 2025

Conversation

0xLucca
Copy link
Collaborator

@0xLucca 0xLucca commented Apr 21, 2025

Rename Asset Hub to Polkadot/Westend hub accordingly

@0xLucca 0xLucca requested a review from a team as a code owner April 21, 2025 13:03
@0xLucca 0xLucca requested a review from nhussein11 April 21, 2025 13:03
@0xLucca 0xLucca added B0 - Needs Review Pull request is ready for review C1 - Medium Medium priority task A2 - Maintenance Minor Pull request contains minor updates to an existing page (i.e., modifying parameters, steps, etc.) labels Apr 21, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@eshaben eshaben left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are still a bunch of references to Asset Hub

Copy link
Contributor

@joepetrowski joepetrowski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Stopped reviewing here. Looks like a simple find-and-replace but no effort to change context or use appropriate framing.

0xLucca and others added 2 commits April 29, 2025 09:05
@0xLucca 0xLucca requested a review from joepetrowski April 30, 2025 11:32
@0xLucca 0xLucca requested a review from eshaben May 5, 2025 11:51
Copy link
Collaborator

@eshaben eshaben left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@0xLucca I feel like I'm going through and making suggestions to switch things back based on my new understanding of how we should be using Polkadot vs Polkadot Hub vs Polkadot Asset Hub (and related testnet changes). But it's difficult for me to do in a review. I think this deserves a page-by-page review, so we're consistently using the same references throughout a single guide. I feel like if we're not consistent, it's going to cause mass confusion.

So this is as far as I got, some of these recommendations might not be the best ones. Need to see it altogether on the page at once. I can help out with this but I don't think the correct process for this is via a review because I need to see the changes all at once to feel confident about it.

@eshaben
Copy link
Collaborator

eshaben commented May 13, 2025

Ok, I pushed up some changes and also commented again on two of my previous comments (see unresolved convos from my last review)

Copy link
Collaborator

@nhussein11 nhussein11 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! but I believe we should first merge staging into this branch to double check if the updated hardhat page contains some conflicting names or not

@0xLucca 0xLucca dismissed joepetrowski’s stale review May 13, 2025 17:28

Dismissing this review as the requested changes were addressed, but the reviewer has been unresponsive for several weeks. The PR has become stale and needs to move forward. Happy to revisit feedback in a future PR if necessary.

@0xLucca 0xLucca requested a review from eshaben May 13, 2025 17:30
@eshaben eshaben merged commit eda9b17 into staging-ah-smart-contracts May 13, 2025
6 checks passed
@eshaben eshaben deleted the 0xlucca/renaming branch May 13, 2025 17:42
@eshaben eshaben removed the B0 - Needs Review Pull request is ready for review label May 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A2 - Maintenance Minor Pull request contains minor updates to an existing page (i.e., modifying parameters, steps, etc.) C1 - Medium Medium priority task
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants