List only after-1.0 work in the README roadmap (closes #208)
check / check (push) Successful in 3m35s
check / check (pull_request) Successful in 3m36s

The README roadmap and the TODO.md Next Step still described finished
1.0 work as remaining. The roadmap now lists only work planned after
1.0. Its security item says the code was reviewed before 1.0, every bug
found was fixed, and the accepted risks are listed; an outside audit
stays as after-1.0 work. The error-condition item is gone because every
failure case it listed has a fault-injection test. Daemon mode is added.
TODO.md says the 1.0 work is complete on next and that merging and
tagging are the owner's.

Judgement call: dropped the human-readable size flags item; no command
flag takes a raw-integer size.

Model: opus-5-5
This commit was merged in pull request #209.
This commit is contained in:
2026-10-01 21:41:41 +02:00
parent b30e79ee45
commit 584444b619
2 changed files with 20 additions and 24 deletions
+13 -15
View File
@@ -577,22 +577,18 @@ complete annotated example also lives in
## roadmap
Items still to do before / shortly after 1.0. Loosely ordered by
priority.
Work planned after 1.0. Loosely ordered by priority.
### correctness and operability
* **Security audit of the encryption implementation.** Pre-1.0
blocker if we're advertising "secure" at the top of this README.
age + zstd + content-defined chunking is mostly off-the-shelf
pieces, but the seams (key handling, recipient parsing, manifest
trust boundary, restore-time identity validation) need an outside
read.
* **Error-condition tests.** Today's coverage is the happy path
plus a few specific regressions. Need fault-injection coverage:
network failures mid-blob, disk-full during restore, corrupted /
truncated / missing blobs, partial uploads, kill -9 between
manifest and db.zst.age writes.
* **Outside security audit.** Before 1.0 the encryption and
blob-generation code was reviewed: every bug the review found was
fixed, and the risks it accepted are listed in
[Accepted Risks](docs/REPOSTRUCTURE.md#accepted-risks). No outside
audit has been done. age + zstd + content-defined chunking
is mostly off-the-shelf pieces, but the seams (key handling,
recipient parsing, manifest trust boundary, restore-time identity
validation) need an outside read.
* **Verify restored content end-to-end in CI.** The current
integration test does this for a small synthetic snapshot but
not at scale. A nightly job against a multi-GB representative
@@ -615,13 +611,15 @@ priority.
doesn't resume from where it stopped or skip already-present
files. A `--resume` mode that checks targets before fetching
blobs would matter for very large restores.
* **Daemon mode.** A long-running mode that watches for file
changes so frequent backups, such as hourly, skip the full scan.
It adds little for the usual runs from cron every 12 to 36 hours.
See [issue #204](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/vaultik/issues/204).
### usability
* **Man pages and richer `--help` examples.** Cobra generates
basic help; man pages would be a separate target.
* **`--bwlimit` style human-readable size flags** across the
command surface where they're currently raw integers.
* **`vaultik snapshot diff <a> <b>`** — show which files changed
between two snapshots without restoring either.
* **Status reporting hook for `--cron`.** When a backup fails