← Back to issue list

Figure out `maintainer` vs. `contact` in debcraft.yaml fields

View original Github issue

Metadata

Project
debcraft
Number
#40
Type
issue
State
open
Author
lengau
Labels
—
Created
Updated
Closed
—

Current evaluation

Open design question (filed by maintainer lengau) on whether debcraft.yaml's required `maintainer` and craft's inherited `contact` field are duplicative; `contact` is still unused in generated control files.

Suggested action: needs triage

Reason: The issue is unlabelled with zero comments, no assignee and no follow-up after 317 days, and the code confirms nothing has been decided or implemented: `debcraft/models/project.py` still declares `maintainer: str` as required with a bare TODO comment `# contact -> Maintainer` (line 93) and `# source-code -> Vcs-Browser` (line 94), while `gencontrol.py:82` emits only `project.maintainer` into the control stanza. Since the body poses an open question ("we should decide whether these fields are duplicative") rather than specifying a change, it needs a maintainer design decision before it can be implemented, which is exactly the untriaged state.

Evaluated by: mr-cal-bot

Impact: 25 Quick Win: 5 Complexity: 30 Confidence: 72 Actionability: 30

Issue body

Currently debcraft requires a `maintainer` field that corresponds to the control file's maintainer field, but the generic craft project has a `contact` field that serves a similar role and we had discussions about using that field. We should decide whether these fields are duplicative or serve different purposes, and if the latter, how to include the contact field in the resulting artifact.

Evaluation history

Date Model Scores Action Summary
stealth/space-bunny-alpha
Impact: 25
Quick Win: 5
Complexity: 30
Confidence: 72
Actionability: 30
needs triage Open design question (filed by maintainer lengau) on whether debcraft.yaml's required `maintainer` and craft's inherited `contact` field are duplicative; `contact` is still unused in generated control files.
qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b
Impact: 30
Quick Win: 9
Complexity: 40
Confidence: 70
Actionability: 50
needs triage Open design decision about whether debcraft.yaml's maintainer and contact fields are duplicative or serve different purposes. No maintainer response or labels.
qwen/qwen3.8-27b
Impact: 35
Quick Win: 16
Staleness: 75
Complexity: 55
Confidence: 70
Support Request: 0
needs triage Open design question on whether debcraft.yaml's required maintainer field overlaps with the generic craft contact field, and how contact should map into the built artifact. No labels, comments, or maintainer response in 285 days; code still has a TODO comment (contact -> Maintainer) in project.py.
qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b
Staleness: 85
Complexity: 40
Confidence: 85
Support Request: 10
needs triage Decision needed on whether maintainer and contact fields in debcraft.yaml are duplicative or serve different purposes, and how to map them to the resulting artifact. Currently untriaged and inactive for 244 days.
qwen3.6-35b-a3b-mtp-q6
Staleness: 70
Complexity: 20
Confidence: 75
Support Request: 5
needs triage Decision needed on whether debcraft.yaml should use maintainer or contact fields, or both, to align with generic craft project conventions. Currently unlabelled and inactive.

Update history

No update history recorded yet.

Related work

  • Related To: canonical/debcraft#39 (confidence 80%)

    Cited directly in debcraft/models/project.py:95 ('Maintainer validation: https://github.com/canonical/debcraft/issues/39'); both issues concern the `maintainer` field, so whichever mapping is chosen here will affect that validation work.

Related issues

No related issues found above the similarity threshold.