Devnet updates: Genesis with CW XCVM contracts for Substrate devnet and Osmosisd app #3737
Conversation
This file contains 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
dzmitry-lahoda
changed the title
dzmitry-lahoda
changed the title
dzmitry-lahoda
changed the title
mina86
previously approved these changes
Jul 3, 2023
RustNinja
previously approved these changes
Jul 3, 2023
Co-authored-by: Michal Nazarewicz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michal Nazarewicz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michal Nazarewicz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]>
mina86
reviewed
Jul 3, 2023
RustNinja
approved these changes
Jul 3, 2023
kkast
reviewed
Jul 3, 2023
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
kkast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2023
…nd Osmosisd app (#3737) - CW in CI green and builds all the time - Osmosisd available - CW in genesis of Picasso (some issue with interpreter contract in genesis) - Centauri chain update to latest version and process-compose update - relayer of Centauri <-> Osmosis next: - centauiry hack for pica denom - CW genesis in Osmosis/Centauri, init, start - Memo limit for Osmosis 2x increase hack - composable node with isolation for p2p discovery and 3rd relayer - macos darwin support (seem couple of lines + build in CI on main) - starting from prebaked genesis - [x] PR title is my best effort to provide summary of changes and has clear text to be part of release notes - [x] I marked PR by `misc` label if it should not be in release notes - [ ] I have linked Zenhub/Github or any other reference item if one exists - [x] I was clear on what type of deployment required to release my changes (node, runtime, contract, indexer, on chain operation, frontend, infrastructure) if any in PR title or description - [x] I waited and did best effort for `pr-workflow-check / draft-release-check` to finish with success(green check mark) with my changes - [x] I have added at least one reviewer in reviewers list - [x] I tagged(@) or used other form of notification of one person who I think can handle best review of this PR - [x] I have proved that PR has no general regressions of relevant features and processes required to release into production --------- Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Michal Nazarewicz <[email protected]>
kkast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2023
…nd Osmosisd app (#3737) - CW in CI green and builds all the time - Osmosisd available - CW in genesis of Picasso (some issue with interpreter contract in genesis) - Centauri chain update to latest version and process-compose update - relayer of Centauri <-> Osmosis next: - centauiry hack for pica denom - CW genesis in Osmosis/Centauri, init, start - Memo limit for Osmosis 2x increase hack - composable node with isolation for p2p discovery and 3rd relayer - macos darwin support (seem couple of lines + build in CI on main) - starting from prebaked genesis - [x] PR title is my best effort to provide summary of changes and has clear text to be part of release notes - [x] I marked PR by `misc` label if it should not be in release notes - [ ] I have linked Zenhub/Github or any other reference item if one exists - [x] I was clear on what type of deployment required to release my changes (node, runtime, contract, indexer, on chain operation, frontend, infrastructure) if any in PR title or description - [x] I waited and did best effort for `pr-workflow-check / draft-release-check` to finish with success(green check mark) with my changes - [x] I have added at least one reviewer in reviewers list - [x] I tagged(@) or used other form of notification of one person who I think can handle best review of this PR - [x] I have proved that PR has no general regressions of relevant features and processes required to release into production --------- Signed-off-by: dzmitry-lahoda <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Michal Nazarewicz <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
next:
centauiry hack for pica denom
CW genesis in Osmosis/Centauri, init, start
Memo limit for Osmosis 2x increase hack
composable node with isolation for p2p discovery and 3rd relayer
macos darwin support (seem couple of lines + build in CI on main)
starting from prebaked genesis
PR title is my best effort to provide summary of changes and has clear text to be part of release notes
I marked PR by
misclabel if it should not be in release notesI have linked Zenhub/Github or any other reference item if one exists
I was clear on what type of deployment required to release my changes (node, runtime, contract, indexer, on chain operation, frontend, infrastructure) if any in PR title or description
I waited and did best effort for
pr-workflow-check / draft-release-checkto finish with success(green check mark) with my changesI have added at least one reviewer in reviewers list
I tagged(@) or used other form of notification of one person who I think can handle best review of this PR
I have proved that PR has no general regressions of relevant features and processes required to release into production