[PATCH v2 2/2] bootstd: Replace bootmethod(s) -> bootmeth(s)

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Heinrich,

On 6/17/24 11:24 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 17.06.24 11:00, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 6/17/24 8:31 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
>>> Hi Heinrich,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review.
>>>
>>> On dim., juin 16, 2024 at 09:38, Heinrich Schuchardt
>>> <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/4/24 17:15, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
>>>>> According to [1], we should use bootmeth when describing the
>>>>> struct bootmeth:
>>>>>
>>>>> """
>>>>> For version 2, a new naming scheme is used as above:
>>>>>
>>>>>       - bootdev is used instead of bootdevice, because 'device' is
>>>>> overused,
>>>>>           is everywhere in U-Boot, can be confused with udevice
>>>>
>>>> Boot devices are udevices though they don't relate to hardware but 
>>>> to an
>>>> abstract concept.
>>>>
>>>> bootdev is just an abbreviation. This does not make the meaning any
>>>> clearer.
>>>
>>> Per my understanding, the name for this concept is "bootdev", not
>>> "boot device", see:
>>>
>>> https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/bootstd.html#introduction
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>       - bootmeth - because 'method' is too vanilla, appears 1300
>>>>> times in
>>>>>           U-Boot
>>>>> """
>>>>
>>>> Avoiding abbreviations like bootdev and bootmeth improved readability.
>>>
>>> The above paragraph is quoted from email [1].
>>> In this email, Simon made the choice to use bootmeth and bootdev
>>> when pushing the initial implementation.
>>>
>>> This patch just corrects the places where the older terminology
>>> (bootmethod, bootdevice) was still used.
>>>
>>
>> The current wording is just incorrect, so it needs to be fixed. We have
>> two choices: use the struct/abbreviated name (bootdevice -> bootdev;
>> bootmethod -> bootmeth) or the full name (bootdevice -> boot device;
>> bootmethod -> boot method).
> 
> The English languages has three types of compound words: solid,
> hyphenated, open. bootmethod, boot-method, boot method all mean the same.
> 
> According to 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-compound-words:
> "Compound nouns are usually written as one word."
> 
> See also "U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual", chapter 6,
> "COMPOUNDING RULES",
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2000/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2000.pdf
> 
> We should avoid unnecessary abbreviations.
> 

It's too late, the abbreviations are used in code already.

For documentation:
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/search.html?q=bootmethod&check_keywords=yes&area=default#

bootmethod returns no match.

https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/bootstd.html#bootmeth
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/expo.html#motivation
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/usage/cmd/bootflow.html#bootflow-list
use "boot method"

all other instances are of bootmeth/bootmeths instead. A little 
consistency here wouldn't hurt. I don't think the current wording is 
consistent. I am non-native, if I read bootmethod, I assume it is used 
with this wording in the code, but it actually isn't, it's called 
bootmeth. If I read "boot method" I understand a way of booting, and I 
will likely not grep in the source code to find how that works.

If it's a NACK, please say so. Otherwise please provide clear 
instructions so we know the wording we should be using for this to be 
accepted.

Cheers,
Quentin