Core vs. Non-Core definitions

Thomas Ward at
Thu Jul 12 19:52:02 UTC 2012

I'm dredging this back up again, given a discussion with hggdh in

This should *really* be defined, core vs. non core for Importance setting,
among other things.

Core vs. Non-Core can make a bug either Low or Medium (see bold items, and

•*Low: Bugs which affect functionality, but to a lesser extent than most
bugs, examples are: *
◦Bugs that have easy work-arounds
◦Bugs that affect unusual end-user configurations or uncommon hardware
◦Bugs that affect a non-essential aspect and limited scope of the
*◦Bugs that have a moderate impact on a non-core application*
◦Cosmetic/usability issues that does not limit the functionality of a
non-core application
◦Non-ideal default configurations
•*Medium: Most bugs are of medium importance, examples are: *
*◦A bug that has a moderate impact on a core application.*
◦A bug that has a severe impact on a non-core application.
◦A bug which impacts accessibility of a non-core application.
◦A usability issue that does not limit the functionality of a core
◦A problem with a non-essential hardware component (removable network card,
camera, webcam, music player, sound card, power management feature,
printer, etc.)

hggdh and I both agree we need to address this and define items.

So once again, I'll dredge this topic up so we can define what is or is not
core, and then list that accordingly on the bugsquad docs.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Ward < at>
Date: Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Subject: Core vs. Non-Core definitions
To: ubuntu-bugsquad at

Hiya, all.

This came up (during UDS) in a discussion I had with micahg on IRC, and
came up again today in #ubuntu-bugs with roadmr.  (NOTE: These are the
users' IRC nicks, I do not have their names readily available)

The definition of a bug's importance includes the difference between core
and non-core on this page here:

There is currently no clear definition of what core or non-core means.  At
every time I have run into a bug that needs its importance set, I've
avoided identifying whether a bug is related to a core or non-core program
(except for Universe and Multiverse package bugs), simply because there is
no clear-cut definition of what is or is not core.

This lack of a definition can sometimes make a recommendation for "medium"
actually end up as "low", and vice versa, based on core-vs-noncore.  This
makes determining importance that much more difficult.

Since this is a critical part of determining a bug's importance, we need
to, in my opinion, do one of the following::
(a) clearly define what applications specifically are or are not core, and
update with each release, or
(b) define what constitutes a core or non-core application/program, or
(c) rewrite the criterion (and therefore the guide) to remove the
difference of core vs. non-core and redefine the bug importance criterion

micahg was in agreement with me that this needs to be defined, so I thought
I would bring this onto the mailing list for discussion and potentially a
final decision be made on this.

So, thoughts?  Opinions?

LP: trekcaptainusa-tw
BugSquad Member
Ubuntu Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list