RPMS

[Alexander Amelkin]

03.03.2021 16:31, Patrick Williams пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:08:06AM +0300, Alexander Amelkin wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I have just noticed that we use a wrong unit name for revolutions per
>> minute.
>> The unit we use is called RPMS, which renders to "Revolution Per MinuteS".
>> The term RPM is already plural in nature and doesn't need the 'S' suffix.
> I think you're talking about the dbus interface [1]?

Exactly.

>
> The units in that interface are all in their plural form.  I don't
> recall why we decided to do that originally.

That's right, they are. What I'm talking about is that "RPMS" is, so to 
say, double-plural
because it is already "revolutionS per minute" to which an extra S is 
added.

>> I believe it needs to be renamed to just 'RPM', what do you think?
> In many cases of pluralized acronyms the 's' is moved to the end even
> though it adds ambiguity as to which underlying word is pluralized.  I
> think this is an artifact of spoken English where almost all plural
> forms end with an 's' so it is natural to add them to acronyms.
>
> The Cambridge dictionary indicates that either RPM or RPMs would be a
> valid plural form [2].

Ok, if Cambridge dictionary says so, who am I to argue,
but it makes me, as an engineer, feel uncomfortable. :)

> Interestingly, CFM is arguably both the singular and plural form because
> the 'f' can be 'foot' or 'feet'.

I don't think it is valid to say "cubic foot per minute". A foot (a 
mile, a revolution) is by definition just a single foot (mile, revolution).
It can't be per anything. So it's either "cubic foot" (entity) or "cubic 
fEEt per minute" (rate of change of the amount of the entity).

You don't say "mile per hour", do you? Well, at least I've never seen 
neither "MPHs", nor "MPGs". On the other hand, English is not my mother 
tongue.

>
>> The unit is used very widely, so a lot of files in openbmc project
>> and a number of other project will need to be updated.
>
> We did make a minor mistake in that it should be 'RPMs' and not 'RPMS',
> but I don't really see that as high-value work to fix at this point.  If
> someone wants to go make that change across all the impacted
> repositories, I'd certainly merge it in PDI.  If anyone feels strongly
> about making it 'RPM' instead at the same time, I'd be fine with that as
> well.

Ok. Noted. Thanks. Will think about it. Just needed a confirmation that 
the work, should I decide to do it, won't be in vain.

>
> 1. https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/Sensor/Value.interface.yaml#L55
> 2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rpm

WBR, Alexander.