[PATCH 2/2] process.rst: Perform minor cleanups

[Claudius Heine]

Hi Tom,

On 2022-07-08 20:38, Tom Rini wrote:
> - Use gender-neutral language to refer to the user, consistently.
> - Reword a few places so that they read more naturally.
> - Make the long standing practice around "Twilight Time" more clear,
>    hopefully.
> - Replace a reference to MAKEALL with a reference to CI testing as
>    that's the current requirement.
> 
> Cc: Claudius Heine <ch at denx.de>
> Cc: Martin Bonner <martingreybeard at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> ---
>   doc/develop/process.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
> index dd279fb9eff1..8f471fd161b2 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/process.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
> @@ -42,21 +42,22 @@ Twilight Time
>   -------------
>   
>   Usually patches do not get accepted as they are - the peer review that takes
> -place will usually require changes and resubmits of the patches before they
> +place will usually require changes and resubmissions of the patches before they
>   are considered to be ripe for inclusion into mainline.
>   
>   Also, the review often happens not immediately after a patch was submitted,
>   but only when somebody (usually the responsible custodian) finds time to do
>   this.
>   
> -In the result, the final version of such patches gets submitted after the
> +The result is that the final version of such patches gets submitted after the
>   merge window has been closed.
>   
>   It is current practice in U-Boot that such patches are eligible to go into the
>   upcoming release.
>   
> -In the result, the release of the ``"-rc1"`` version does not immediately follow
> -the closing of the Merge Window.
> +The result is that the release of the ``"-rc1"`` version and formal closing of
> +the Merge Window does not preclude patches that were already posted from being
> +merged for the upcoming release.
>   
>   Stabilization Period
>   --------------------
> @@ -71,13 +72,13 @@ Sometimes it is not clear if a patch contains a bug fix or not.
>   For example, changes that remove dead code, unused macros etc. or
>   that contain Coding Style fixes are not strict bug fixes.
>   
> -In such situations it is up to the responsible custodian to decide if he
> -applies such patches even when the Merge Window is closed.
> +In such situations it is up to the responsible custodian to decide if they
> +apply such patches even when the Merge Window is closed.
>   
>   Exception: at the end of the Stabilization Period only strict bug
>   fixes my be applied.
>   
> -Sometimes patches miss the the Merge Window slightly - say by few
> +Sometimes patches miss the Merge Window slightly - say by few
>   hours or even a day. Patch acceptance is not as critical as a
>   financial transaction, or such. So if there is such a slight delay,
>   the custodian is free to turn a blind eye and accept it anyway. The
> @@ -105,7 +106,7 @@ Custodians
>   ----------
>   
>   The Custodians take responsibility for some area of the U-Boot code.  The
> -in-tree ``MAINTAINERS`` files list who is reponsible for which areas.
> +in-tree ``MAINTAINERS`` files list who is responsible for which areas.
>   
>   It is their responsibility to pick up patches from the mailing list
>   that fall into their responsibility, and to process these.
> @@ -144,7 +145,7 @@ like this:
>   
>      #. U-Boot Philosophy
>      #. Applies cleanly to the source tree
> -   #. passes a ``MAKEALL`` compile test without creating new warnings
> +   #. Passes :doc:`ci_testing` as this checks for new warnings and other issues.
>   
>   #. Notes:
>   
> @@ -153,7 +154,7 @@ like this:
>        patch should send a short ACK to the mailing list.
>     #. We should create some tool to automatically do this.
>     #. This is well documented in :doc:`designprinciples`.
> -  #. The custodian decides himself how recent the code must be.  It is
> +  #. The custodian decides themselves how recent the code must be.  It is
>        acceptable to request patches against the last officially released
>        version of U-Boot or newer.  Of course a custodian can also accept
>        patches against older code.
> @@ -161,22 +162,22 @@ like this:
>         sign off/ack lines.
>   
>   5. The custodian decides to accept or to reject the patch.
> -#. If accepted, the custodian adds the patch to his public git repository and
> +#. If accepted, the custodian adds the patch to their public git repository and
>      notifies the mailing list. This note should include:
>   
>      * a short description of the changes
>      * the list of the affected boards / architectures etc.
>      * suggested tests
>   
> -   Although the custodian is supposed to perform his own tests
> -   it is a well-known and accepted fact that he needs help from
> +   Although the custodian is supposed to perform their own tests
> +   it is a well-known and accepted fact that they needs help from
>      other developers who - for example - have access to the required
>      hardware or tool chains.
>      The custodian request help for tests and feedback from
>      specific maintainers and U-Boot users.
>   #. Once tests are passed, some agreed time limit expires, the custodian
> -   requests that the changes in his public git repository be merged into the
> -   main tree. If necessary, the custodian may have to adapt his changes to
> +   requests that the changes in their public git repository be merged into the
> +   main tree. If necessary, the custodian may have to adapt their changes to
>      allow for a clean merge.
>      Todo: define a reasonable time limit. 3 weeks?
>   

Is this still a todo?

Reviewed-by: Claudius Heine <ch at denx.de>