refactor: remove deprecated vote option

[atheeshp]

Description

Closes: #10792

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[amaury1093]

let's add a reserved 3

[cmwaters]

Hey, what's the status on this. Is it ready to be reviewed?

[atheeshp]

Hey, what's the status on this. Is it ready to be reviewed?

@AmauryM said this has to wait for #10868 (once we switch to v1beta2 everywhere, we should see if there are still places left which use the old field)

[cmwaters]

This should be unblocked now @atheeshp. Do you mind updating the PR and resolving the conflicts so we can merge 🙏

[cmwaters]

looks like there are a few other places that uses vote.Option that we need to remove

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #10854 (094c295) into master (95e65fe) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 77.41%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10854      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.95%   65.90%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         647      677      +30     
  Lines       65873    68059    +2186     
==========================================
+ Hits        43444    44854    +1410     
- Misses      19941    20498     +557     
- Partials     2488     2707     +219     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crypto/armor.go	83.08% <ø> (ø)
x/gov/keeper/grpc_query.go	73.01% <ø> (-0.29%)	⬇️
x/gov/keeper/vote.go	92.50% <ø> (+2.17%)	⬆️
crypto/xsalsa20symmetric/symmetric.go	65.71% <65.71%> (ø)
x/upgrade/abci.go	92.15% <84.61%> (-2.58%)	⬇️
x/upgrade/keeper/keeper.go	84.61% <100.00%> (+3.49%)	⬆️
x/distribution/simulation/operations.go	80.54% <0.00%> (-9.73%)	⬇️
errors/handle.go
errors/errors.go
... and 36 more

[amaury1093]

lgtm

[tac0turtle]

lgtm, should we add a changelog entry so client libraries are aware?