docs: use either Hardfork or Network upgrade consistently across docs about docs HOT 9 OPEN

Relevant:

• https://celestia-team.slack.com/archives/C03324EKQ1Y/p1711421442178759
• https://celestia-team.slack.com/archives/C03324EKQ1Y/p1718379061791679

TLDR: there isn't team alignment on the decision to use "hard fork" or "network upgrade" so we need to build alignment before we implement this.

from docs.

I'm fine with renaming "Lemongrass hardfork" => "Lemongrass network upgrade" if we add a redirect or fix links

from docs.

yeah, I'm on the fence about what to do so will think about this

#1552 reverted #1542 pretty quickly bc it was so jank 😅

from docs.

Thank you for adding the context! Yep, acknowledging that we'll need to align here first.

from docs.

Voting on poll is leaning toward "Network upgrade" 14-1 https://celestia-team.slack.com/archives/C01JZFUPG48/p1724260139073369

from docs.

I'm in favor of network upgrade.

When we address this issue, we should try to avoid breaking existing links to the docs. Or if we break the links, we should try to fix them. For example the v2.0.0 release notes link to Lemongrass hardfork.

from docs.

Good call out. Do you think it would be best practice to leave "Lemongrass hardfork" as is? So as to not break things for that, and going forward, use Network upgrade?

from docs.

While it is possible, it still feels a little jank, because you have to leave an old page up still. This is the cleanest way in Vitepress to do redirects that I know of: https://github.com/celestiaorg/docs/pull/1542/files

from docs.

I just tried two alternative way to configure redirects:

1. router.addRoute
2. rewrites

but neither worked so agreed that it's kinda jank

from docs.