style: revive

[alarso16]

Why this should be merged

Same as ava-labs/coreth#1136

See #1103

How this works

Adds lint

How this was tested

UT, Lint

Need to be documented?

No

Need to update RELEASES.md?

No

[JonathanOppenheimer]

LGTM

[JonathanOppenheimer]

I think one thing worth adding to the discussion here is that a lot of these changes were already made, and merged into coreth as subnet-evm is the recipient of coreth changes via the syncing process.

I would at least personally prefer the bulk of review to happen for common changes in coreth and the sync PRs should be fairly cursory, as changes here increase the diff between subnet-evm and coreth. This is admittedly pedantic but does make unifying the two repositories (slightly) harder in the long run! Not to discount the validity of the comments here, but yeah just more toil created.

[ARR4N]

I think one thing worth adding to the discussion here is that a lot of these changes were already made, and merged into coreth as subnet-evm is the recipient of coreth changes via the syncing process.

I would at least personally prefer the bulk of review to happen for common changes in coreth and the sync PRs should be fairly cursory, as changes here increase the diff between subnet-evm and coreth. This is admittedly pedantic but does make unifying the two repositories (slightly) harder in the long run! Not to discount the validity of the comments here, but yeah just more toil created.

That's fair, and I agree. In this case I think we should be relaxing the need for a double review and have one original (coreth) reviewer review the subnet-evm PR because it's purely mechanical.

[alarso16]

One of the suggestions here was rather critical, so I made a PR (ava-labs/coreth#1187) to fix these. I will update this branch to include the fixes suggested by @ARR4N