From 56f407b4f64bbc05b455901059f79bca5f7719b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ♪ I'm a bot, bot, bot ♪ <_update_docs_trans@sundries01.phx2.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Sep 03 2021 22:30:44 +0000
Subject: automatic update of pot/po files


---

diff --git a/po/fr/master/pages/Package_review_policy.po b/po/fr/master/pages/Package_review_policy.po
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..99901b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/po/fr/master/pages/Package_review_policy.po
@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
+# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
+# FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL@ADDRESS>, YEAR.
+#
+#, fuzzy
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-09-03 22:25+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
+"Last-Translator: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>\n"
+"Language-Team: LANGUAGE <LL@li.org>\n"
+"Language: \n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+
+#. type: Title =
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:1
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Package Review Policy"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:5
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Purpose"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:15
+msgid ""
+"In order for a new package to be added to Fedora, the package must first "
+"undertake a formal review.  The purpose of this formal review is to try to "
+"ensure that the package meets the quality control requirements for Fedora.  "
+"This does not mean that the package (or the software being packaged)  is "
+"perfect, but it should meet baseline minimum requirements for quality."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:17
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Applicability"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:19
+msgid "Reviews are done for:"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:21
+msgid "New packages,"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:22
+msgid ""
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/[Package "
+"renames],"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:23
+msgid "Old packages that were once retired returning to the collection,"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:24
+msgid "Packages merged from the old Fedora Core repository."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:28
+msgid ""
+"Some new packages are exempt from the review process.  The "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee[Packaging Committee] "
+"maintains "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process[the "
+"list of criteria]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:37
+msgid ""
+"The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review "
+"process.  This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar "
+"packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a "
+"new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution "
+"with a different name.  The process for granting exceptions is described at "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[Packaging "
+"Committee#Review Process Exemption Procedure]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:39
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Review roles"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:44
+msgid ""
+"There are two participant roles in the review process, _the Contributor_ and "
+"_the Reviewer_.  Other people are also allowed to comment on the review on "
+"informal basis."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:52
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor is someone who wants to submit and maintain a new package in "
+"Fedora.  There are no restrictions on who can submit a package for review.  "
+"However, the review can only be accepted if the Contributor is member of the "
+"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager group].  This "
+"may mean that the Contributor has to "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group[Get "
+"Sponsored into the Package Group] while the review is in progress."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:56
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer is someone who chooses to review a package.  The Reviewer must "
+"be a member of the "
+"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager group] when the "
+"review starts."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:58
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Review process"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:63
+msgid ""
+"The package submitted by the Contributor must adhere to the "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging "
+"Guidelines].  It must not be in list of "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items[Forbidden Items]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:67
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor requests a review of their package by making its specfile "
+"and SRPM available in a public url and posting a review request in Bugzilla "
+"as described in "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package "
+"Review Process]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:72
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer finds the package by looking for unassigned reviews and "
+"assigning themselves to it.  The Contributor may also actively ask for a "
+"review if needed.  These tasks are described in the "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package "
+"Review Process]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:80
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer reviews the package based on "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging "
+"Guidelines], in particular "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/[Review "
+"Guidelines].  A package that does not violate any MUST items can be "
+"approved.  Violations of SHOULD items do not prevent approval, but a "
+"reasonable attempt should be made to satisfy them.  The Reviewer can also "
+"comment on other items not covered by the guidelines.  Such additional "
+"comments must not affect approval of the package."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:87
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor must address any issues raised by the Reviewer until the "
+"Reviewer is satisfied with the package.  The Contributor should also "
+"consider the possible informal feedback given by other people.  However, the "
+"review is ultimately between the Contributor and the Reviewer, with the "
+"Reviewer judging if the package can be approved or not."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:89
+msgid "The review continues until one of the following conditions are met:"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:91
+msgid "The Reviewer is satisfied with the package and approves it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:94
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer determines that the package cannot be approved for some reason "
+"and rejects it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:96
+msgid "The review stalls as described in <<stalled>> and is closed."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:103
+msgid ""
+"If the package is legally risky for whatever reason (known patent or "
+"copyright infringement, trademark concerns)  the Reviewer must reject the "
+"review and leave an appropriate comment, (e.g. _we do not ship codecs with "
+"patent issues_).  They must also mark the review as blocking "
+"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235[FE-Legal]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:105
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Stalled reviews"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:119
+msgid ""
+"Occasionally package reviews fail to make forward progress due to lack of "
+"response from one of the parties involved in the review.  This policy "
+"addresses two classes of reviews: Those stalled because the review submitter "
+"is not responding, and those which have been assigned to a reviewer but are "
+"stalled because that reviewer is not responding.  The idea is to move the "
+"ticket to a state where other interested parties can submit the package or "
+"take over the review.  Of course there is no intent to punish anyone, and "
+"tickets can always be assigned back to the same reviewer or reopened."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ===
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:121
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Reviewer not responding"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:127
+msgid ""
+"When a review ticket is assigned to a reviewer who does not respond to "
+"comments for one month, a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the "
+"review is stalled and that a response is needed soon."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:134
+msgid ""
+"If there is no response within one week, the `fedora‑review` flag is set to "
+"the empty value.  The ticket is reassigned to `nobody@fedoraproject.org` "
+"(use the _Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component_ radio "
+"button for this)  with the intention to move the ticket back to a state "
+"where another reviewer can work on it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ===
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:136
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Submitter not responding"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:141
+msgid ""
+"When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one "
+"month, a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is "
+"stalled and that a response is needed soon."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:145
+msgid ""
+"If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed with "
+"resolution `NOTABUG`, and the `fedora-review` flag is set to the empty "
+"value."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:150
+msgid ""
+"The bug may be set as blocking "
+"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-DEADREVIEW[FE-DEADREVIEW].  "
+"The intention is to close the bug so that it can be submitted by someone "
+"else in a separate bug, and also to make it easy to find bugs closed in this "
+"way."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:154
+msgid ""
+"If the bug is resubmitted by someone else, it is also reasonable to change "
+"the resolution on the closed bug to `DUPLICATE` and mark it as a duplicate "
+"of the new bug so that reviewers of the new ticket can easily find the work "
+"that was done on the old one."
+msgstr ""
diff --git a/pot/master/nav.pot b/pot/master/nav.pot
index 9270721..838aa41 100644
--- a/pot/master/nav.pot
+++ b/pot/master/nav.pot
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 msgid ""
 msgstr ""
 "Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-06-24 21:58+0000\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-09-03 22:25+0000\n"
 "PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
 "Last-Translator: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>\n"
 "Language-Team: LANGUAGE <LL@li.org>\n"
@@ -117,22 +117,27 @@ msgstr ""
 
 #. type: Plain text
 #: ./nav.adoc:19
+msgid "xref:Package_review_policy.adoc[Package review policy]"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./nav.adoc:20
 msgid ""
 "xref:Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages.adoc[Who is allowed to modify "
 "which packages]"
 msgstr ""
 
 #. type: Plain text
-#: ./nav.adoc:20
+#: ./nav.adoc:21
 msgid "xref:Third_Party_Repository_Policy.adoc[Third party repository policy]"
 msgstr ""
 
 #. type: Plain text
-#: ./nav.adoc:21
+#: ./nav.adoc:22
 msgid "xref:Updates_Policy.adoc[Updates policy]"
 msgstr ""
 
 #. type: Plain text
-#: ./nav.adoc:21
+#: ./nav.adoc:22
 msgid "xref:FESCo_election_policy.adoc[FESCo election policy]"
 msgstr ""
diff --git a/pot/master/pages/Package_review_policy.pot b/pot/master/pages/Package_review_policy.pot
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..99901b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pot/master/pages/Package_review_policy.pot
@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
+# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
+# FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL@ADDRESS>, YEAR.
+#
+#, fuzzy
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-09-03 22:25+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
+"Last-Translator: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>\n"
+"Language-Team: LANGUAGE <LL@li.org>\n"
+"Language: \n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+
+#. type: Title =
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:1
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Package Review Policy"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:5
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Purpose"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:15
+msgid ""
+"In order for a new package to be added to Fedora, the package must first "
+"undertake a formal review.  The purpose of this formal review is to try to "
+"ensure that the package meets the quality control requirements for Fedora.  "
+"This does not mean that the package (or the software being packaged)  is "
+"perfect, but it should meet baseline minimum requirements for quality."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:17
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Applicability"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:19
+msgid "Reviews are done for:"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:21
+msgid "New packages,"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:22
+msgid ""
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/[Package "
+"renames],"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:23
+msgid "Old packages that were once retired returning to the collection,"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:24
+msgid "Packages merged from the old Fedora Core repository."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:28
+msgid ""
+"Some new packages are exempt from the review process.  The "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee[Packaging Committee] "
+"maintains "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process[the "
+"list of criteria]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:37
+msgid ""
+"The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review "
+"process.  This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar "
+"packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a "
+"new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution "
+"with a different name.  The process for granting exceptions is described at "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[Packaging "
+"Committee#Review Process Exemption Procedure]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:39
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Review roles"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:44
+msgid ""
+"There are two participant roles in the review process, _the Contributor_ and "
+"_the Reviewer_.  Other people are also allowed to comment on the review on "
+"informal basis."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:52
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor is someone who wants to submit and maintain a new package in "
+"Fedora.  There are no restrictions on who can submit a package for review.  "
+"However, the review can only be accepted if the Contributor is member of the "
+"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager group].  This "
+"may mean that the Contributor has to "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group[Get "
+"Sponsored into the Package Group] while the review is in progress."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:56
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer is someone who chooses to review a package.  The Reviewer must "
+"be a member of the "
+"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager group] when the "
+"review starts."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:58
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Review process"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:63
+msgid ""
+"The package submitted by the Contributor must adhere to the "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging "
+"Guidelines].  It must not be in list of "
+"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items[Forbidden Items]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:67
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor requests a review of their package by making its specfile "
+"and SRPM available in a public url and posting a review request in Bugzilla "
+"as described in "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package "
+"Review Process]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:72
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer finds the package by looking for unassigned reviews and "
+"assigning themselves to it.  The Contributor may also actively ask for a "
+"review if needed.  These tasks are described in the "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package "
+"Review Process]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:80
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer reviews the package based on "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/[Packaging "
+"Guidelines], in particular "
+"https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/[Review "
+"Guidelines].  A package that does not violate any MUST items can be "
+"approved.  Violations of SHOULD items do not prevent approval, but a "
+"reasonable attempt should be made to satisfy them.  The Reviewer can also "
+"comment on other items not covered by the guidelines.  Such additional "
+"comments must not affect approval of the package."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:87
+msgid ""
+"The Contributor must address any issues raised by the Reviewer until the "
+"Reviewer is satisfied with the package.  The Contributor should also "
+"consider the possible informal feedback given by other people.  However, the "
+"review is ultimately between the Contributor and the Reviewer, with the "
+"Reviewer judging if the package can be approved or not."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:89
+msgid "The review continues until one of the following conditions are met:"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:91
+msgid "The Reviewer is satisfied with the package and approves it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:94
+msgid ""
+"The Reviewer determines that the package cannot be approved for some reason "
+"and rejects it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:96
+msgid "The review stalls as described in <<stalled>> and is closed."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:103
+msgid ""
+"If the package is legally risky for whatever reason (known patent or "
+"copyright infringement, trademark concerns)  the Reviewer must reject the "
+"review and leave an appropriate comment, (e.g. _we do not ship codecs with "
+"patent issues_).  They must also mark the review as blocking "
+"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235[FE-Legal]."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ==
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:105
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Stalled reviews"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:119
+msgid ""
+"Occasionally package reviews fail to make forward progress due to lack of "
+"response from one of the parties involved in the review.  This policy "
+"addresses two classes of reviews: Those stalled because the review submitter "
+"is not responding, and those which have been assigned to a reviewer but are "
+"stalled because that reviewer is not responding.  The idea is to move the "
+"ticket to a state where other interested parties can submit the package or "
+"take over the review.  Of course there is no intent to punish anyone, and "
+"tickets can always be assigned back to the same reviewer or reopened."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ===
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:121
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Reviewer not responding"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:127
+msgid ""
+"When a review ticket is assigned to a reviewer who does not respond to "
+"comments for one month, a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the "
+"review is stalled and that a response is needed soon."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:134
+msgid ""
+"If there is no response within one week, the `fedora‑review` flag is set to "
+"the empty value.  The ticket is reassigned to `nobody@fedoraproject.org` "
+"(use the _Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component_ radio "
+"button for this)  with the intention to move the ticket back to a state "
+"where another reviewer can work on it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Title ===
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:136
+#, no-wrap
+msgid "Submitter not responding"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:141
+msgid ""
+"When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one "
+"month, a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is "
+"stalled and that a response is needed soon."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:145
+msgid ""
+"If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed with "
+"resolution `NOTABUG`, and the `fedora-review` flag is set to the empty "
+"value."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:150
+msgid ""
+"The bug may be set as blocking "
+"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-DEADREVIEW[FE-DEADREVIEW].  "
+"The intention is to close the bug so that it can be submitted by someone "
+"else in a separate bug, and also to make it easy to find bugs closed in this "
+"way."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Plain text
+#: ./pages/Package_review_policy.adoc:154
+msgid ""
+"If the bug is resubmitted by someone else, it is also reasonable to change "
+"the resolution on the closed bug to `DUPLICATE` and mark it as a duplicate "
+"of the new bug so that reviewers of the new ticket can easily find the work "
+"that was done on the old one."
+msgstr ""