DimitrisJim

dunno why I kept this in draft, opening for review. Can ignore linting issue will fix tomorrow. edit: whoops, seems the rebase messed with me, I'll fix em up.

Hey y'all wanted to give an update on this. Discussed with @chatton last week and we came up with a couple of steps to actually get this through the finish...

@chatton has pushed a number of awesome improvements building from this.I think I'll close this PR for now. Thanks so much for initial work on this @anhductn2001! :heart:

Nice! In addition, a re-org like this would also be a great op for an `internal` pkg for all the types that might now need to be exported (if we...

Some notes: - Many of the types in `ibcwasm` don't need to be mentioned, they were already private. - Types moved to `internal/store` were previously private in `types`. Additions: -...

woooo, thanks @bznein!! :heart:

better late than never to drop a comment @expertdicer :smile:! I see the PR is failing on e2es but don't have much time this month to see why (`reserved` might...

sgtm! this seems quite unfortunate though, iirc reserved was supposed to be a clean way to remove certain field from the proto structures.

Released. Go 1.22 enables scoping per iteration for loop variables https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/60078-loopvar.md which could slightly change loop semantics in certain cases. Unit tests run fine locally but checking for places in...

> Is it safe to completely remove also (can open a separate issue) the messages for ClientUpdateProposal and UpgradeProposal what would happen if we removed these (and the route in...