Follow golang naming convention for constants

[masih]

The codebase inconsistently follows the MaxCaps golang naming convention for constant.

Consistently use MaxCaps for all constants, except for PHASEs to keep the code easier to read.

[Stebalien]

I'd say to wait for code freeze.

[masih]

I'd say to wait for code freeze.

Would it make that much of a difference? There are not that many PRs open and it's unlikely for open PRs/ongoing-work to have renamed constants meaning hopefully no conflicts, or easy to fix ones at that. I would just rip the bandaid.

Having said that, I have no strong opinions.

[Stebalien]

There aren't that many open PRs, but this will conflict with anything anyone is working on locally. Given that we can make this change programatically at any time, I'd prefer to wait.

But I also don't have strong opinions on this.

[anorth]

I don't like the change for the phase names in particular, but if this is a clearly established convention I'm not going to argue.

[anorth]

I removed from the merge queue just to leave space for a second thought about when to merge this or if we indeed want to change everything.

[masih]

Marked as draft to revisit just before code freeze as recommended by the team.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.33%. Comparing base (cbb522b) to head (8022303).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #344      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.28%   81.33%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        3574     3574              
==========================================
+ Hits         2905     2907       +2     
+ Misses        392      391       -1     
+ Partials      277      276       -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
ec/fake_ec.go	83.11% <100.00%> (ø)
gpbft/gpbft.go	88.75% <100.00%> (ø)
gpbft/participant.go	86.81% <100.00%> (ø)
gpbft/vrf.go	86.66% <100.00%> (ø)
host.go	67.80% <100.00%> (-0.29%)	⬇️
gpbft/chain.go	92.00% <25.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes