Documentation: fixes to the maintainer-entry-profile template

Do some wordsmithing and copy editing on the maintainer-entry-profile
profile (template, guide):
- fix punctuation
- fix some wording
- use "-rc" consistently

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/fbaa9b67-e7b8-d5e8-ecbb-6ae068234880@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
index 11ebe36827710e7a80347cb0318c7b244462c183..77e43c8b24b4c81ae8ee0cb9986ceb3769686888 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ The Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process documents
 (submitting-patches, submitting drivers...) with
 subsystem/device-driver-local customs as well as details about the patch
 submission life-cycle. A contributor uses this document to level set
-their expectations and avoid common mistakes, maintainers may use these
+their expectations and avoid common mistakes; maintainers may use these
 profiles to look across subsystems for opportunities to converge on
 common practices.
 
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Example questions to consider:
 - Does the subsystem have a patchwork instance? Are patchwork state
   changes notified?
 - Any bots or CI infrastructure that watches the list, or automated
-  testing feedback that the subsystem gates acceptance?
+  testing feedback that the subsystem uses to gate acceptance?
 - Git branches that are pulled into -next?
 - What branch should contributors submit against?
 - Links to any other Maintainer Entry Profiles? For example a
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@ One of the common misunderstandings of submitters is that patches can be
 sent at any time before the merge window closes and can still be
 considered for the next -rc1. The reality is that most patches need to
 be settled in soaking in linux-next in advance of the merge window
-opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms rc release
-week) that patches might considered for merging and when patches need to
+opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms of -rc release
+week) that patches might be considered for merging and when patches need to
 wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
 
 - Last -rc for new feature submissions:
@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
 - Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions
   Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch
   set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no
-  obligation to ever except any given patchset, but if the review has not
-  concluded by this point the expectation the contributor should wait and
+  obligation to ever accept any given patchset, but if the review has not
+  concluded by this point the expectation is the contributor should wait and
   resubmit for the following merge window.
 
 Optional: