smol-ninja

I am more inclined towards calling it `sablier-lockup`. My rationale is that Sablier may not necessarily be compatible with [different types of zkEVMs, such as type 3 and type 4](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2022/08/04/zkevm.html)...

Fair point about `evm-lockup`. I agree with both of your arguments. > I am open to that, but I would still prefer to keep this "parent" issue to track all...

As discussed on Slack, this will be picked after [major refactoring](https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/discussions/805) and [LockupTranched](https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/issues/787) contracts are finished.

The name is not related to Etherscan. It's ERC721 metadata set up [in our core contracts](https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/blob/2b65c464a40fe0924ef1c3ce0aa24a0d90b3abf8/src/SablierV2LockupLinear.sol#L65).

Original issue https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/issues/820. The task is to adjust the description generated in the NFT descriptor to account for the package tethering, i.e., say LockupLinear v1.1.2 instead of Sablier V2: https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/blob/d5aea835dfe32b6cffa1c8cb40a7ba458f4ab5ee/src/SablierV2NFTDescriptor.sol#L261-L279

Since `open-ended` and `core` are going to share the same periphery contracts, shouldn't we include open-ended repo into this as well? Ofc, we can choose to not include it but...

Yes thats what I meant, or we build separate periphery contracts for the `open-ended`, i.e. `v2-lockup` contains core and periphery required for lockup product and open-ended repo contains core and...

> i am not in favor of this Me neither. I also think we should keep OE separate from lockup repo.

@PaulRBerg should we rename `SablierNFTDescriptor` to `LockupNFTDescriptor` or `SablierLockupNFTDescriptor` given that NFT Descriptor for Flow would be separate?

The [refactor PR](https://github.com/sablier-labs/v2-core/pull/994) has been merged so now we can move ahead with changing the repo name.