Core vs. Non-Core definitions

[Thomas Ward]

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: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance


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
accordingly.

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?

------
Thomas
LP: trekcaptainusa-tw
BugSquad Member
Ubuntu Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20120515/27fbde12/attachment.html>