R4R: rename stake/ to staking/

[rigelrozanski]

closes #2222

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.

• Wrote tests

• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)

• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #

• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3280 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 91.45%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3280      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    55.27%   55.25%   -0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          134      134              
  Lines         9518     9518              
===========================================
- Hits          5261     5259       -2     
- Misses        3926     3928       +2     
  Partials       331      331

[cwgoes]

OK; this will cause merge conflicts for everything, can we wait until any relevant PRs have been merged?

[rigelrozanski]

TBH I don't think there is ever going to be a "good" time to merge this in. I'd recommend merging sooner than later so everything working has more time to be adjusted (also I believe that fixes will be easier on unmerged branches than on updates on develop to this branch)

[alexanderbez]

LGTM and CI passes, haven't looked too in depth into the docs.

[jackzampolin]

Do we really want to break all of our clients (stake -> staking and /stake/* -> /staking/*)? This has been a common complaint from users (and one I heard from a number of wallet devs this morning) and this change is just a simple rename with no real added functionality. I think we should consider if this is really necessary cc @fedekunze @faboweb

[rigelrozanski]

it's a very easy upgrade on the client side, and generally, we should absolutely not let a dir name changes be blocked for this reason especially in pre-1.0 software. There will come a time however, post-launch when these changes will become much more arduous due to the large number of client implementations - we're not there however.

stake is an ambiguous name for a number of reasons, and was only ever intended to be temporary (was renamed stake long ago while we had another staking implementation we left as being named staking, while allowing new development to take place under stake). Anyways - that's all - we really ought to merge this.

[fedekunze]

LGTM. Agree with @rigelrozanski that's nbd to change the clients. I don't have strong feelings about this change so ¯_(ツ)_/¯