Omni-Node renamings

[serban300]

• moved the omni-node lib from
  cumulus/polkadot-parachain/polkadot-parachain-lib to
  cumulus/polkadot-omni-node/lib
• renamed polkadot-parachain-lib to polkadot-omni-node-lib
• added polkadot-omni-node binary

Related to #5566

[skunert]

I am not entirely sure if we gain something from this naming. To us its maybe obvious. But looking from the outside, polkadot-parachain or even just parachain-node sounds more intuitive and less surprising to me. In the end this is exactly what it is, just a parachain-node.

[serban300]

I am not entirely sure if we gain something from this naming. To us its maybe obvious. But looking from the outside, polkadot-parachain or even just parachain-node sounds more intuitive and less surprising to me. In the end this is exactly what it is, just a parachain-node.

@kianenigma what do you think ?

[kianenigma]

(have not read the code yet)

I am not surprised to see pushback on the renaming 🙈

I am in favor of the renaming. Here's my reasons:

1. It amplifies the code-word of the project "omni-something". It is a guess, but I think it is more comprehensible to repeat the omni-prefix in all such tools.
2. Calling it parachain-node and/or polkadot-parachain prevents us from ever even imagining adding more abilities related to being a solo-chain to this node, something that I guess even parachain teams reasonably want esp. to run a testnet.
3. It changes nothing about polkadot-parachain: It remains as is, and it is indeed "Just a polkadot parachain node" as @skunert puts it.

Perhaps the confusion is partly because my original issue was lacking on point (remove any chainspec from the generic polkadot-omni-node). The outcome of this PR should be:

0. rename the library crate to polkadot-omni-node-lib. This is hidden from all users atm, because no one is using this crate yet (unless if you are @xlc and acala-node).
1. polkadot-parachain remains 100% as-is, and it is an instantiation of polkadot-omni-node-lib with all polkadot-related chainspecs hardcoded. This makes perfect sense to me in terms of naming: A parachain node, built from the generic polkadot-omni-node-lib, that is specialized for running Polkadot system chains, ergo polakdot-parachain.
2. polkadot-omni-node is a new binary, which is a raw instantiation of polkadot-omni-node-lib without any chainspecs or specialization.

So when looked at this way, we are not really touching polkadot-parachain. It remains as-is, and we are adding a new binary that is the more generic version of it.

[kianenigma]

So just looking at this file, i can confirm that this is not what I intended (as noted, my original issue was not super clear). High level, expect to see something like:

cumulus/polkadot-parachain should stay. This is also crucial for our internal devops to not put a bounty on my head.
cumulus/polkadot-omni-node should be a new crate.
cumulus/polkadot-parachain-lib -> cumulus/polkadot-omni-node/lib

[serban300]

Sorry, I misunderstood the requirement a bit. Will fix it.

[skunert]

(have not read the code yet)

I am not surprised to see pushback on the renaming 🙈

I am in favor of the renaming. Here's my reasons:

1. It amplifies the code-word of the project "omni-_something_". It is a guess, but I think it is more comprehensible to repeat the omni-prefix in all such tools.

2. Calling it `parachain-node` and/or `polkadot-parachain` prevents us from ever even _imagining_ adding more abilities related to being a solo-chain to this node, something that I [guess even parachain teams reasonably want](https://github.com/orgs/paritytech/projects/157/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=82036322) esp. to run a testnet.

3. It changes nothing about polkadot-parachain: It remains as is, and it is indeed "Just a polkadot parachain node" as @skunert puts it.

Perhaps the confusion is partly because my original issue was lacking on point (remove any chainspec from the generic polkadot-omni-node). The outcome of this PR should be:

0. rename the library crate to `polkadot-omni-node-lib`. This is hidden from all users atm, because no one is using this crate yet (unless if you are @xlc and `acala-node`).

1. `polkadot-parachain` remains 100% as-is, and it is an instantiation of `polkadot-omni-node-lib` with all polkadot-related chainspecs hardcoded. This makes perfect sense to me in terms of naming: A parachain node, built from the generic `polkadot-omni-node-lib`, that is specialized for running Polkadot system chains, ergo `polakdot-parachain`.

2. `polkadot-omni-node` is a new binary, which is a raw instantiation of `polkadot-omni-node-lib` without any chainspecs or specialization.

So when looked at this way, we are not really touching polkadot-parachain. It remains as-is, and we are adding a new binary that is the more generic version of it.

These are good points, I also forgot about frame-omni-bencher which goes nicely with this.

[kianenigma]

These are good points, I also forgot about frame-omni-bencher which goes nicely with this.

In my dreams, the binary list that one would see in our release pages would be:

1. polkadot-parachain
2. polkadot-omni-node
3. polkadot-omni-bencher
4. polkadot-omni-chain-spec-builder

Not to late to rename them? idk. But given https://github.com/orgs/paritytech/projects/157/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=78432998 in the roadmap, I won't push for this. Goal is to allow users to to all of this in just polkadot-omni-node.

@serban300 another small action item that comes to mind here is to ensure that as a consequence of this PR, polkadot-omni-node is also released. This requires a few GH/GL action files to be edited, #5387 is probably a good example. CC @EgorPopelyaev

[serban300]

So just looking at this file, i can confirm that this is not what I intended (as noted, my original issue was not super clear). High level, expect to see something like:

cumulus/polkadot-parachain should stay. This is also crucial for our internal devops to not put a bounty on my head. cumulus/polkadot-omni-node should be a new crate. cumulus/polkadot-parachain-lib -> cumulus/polkadot-omni-node/lib

@kianenigma @skunert I addressed this comment. I had to force push because there were a lot of conflicts. Can you PTAL ? This PR only contains the renamings and also added the polkadot-omni-node binary. I will implement the part about publishing the polkadot-omni-node binary in a different PR. Would like to merge this one as soon as possible to avoid merge conflicts since it moves a lot of files.