Correct remote layout and privacy docs for hashed snapshot keys (closes #67)

The remote layout and threat model in three documents described plaintext
snapshot IDs as directory names and misattributed the observable backup
time to those IDs. In fact `RemoteSnapshotKey` names each metadata
directory (and the manifest `snapshot_id`) with a one-way double SHA-256
hash of the human ID, so hostname and snapshot name are not observable;
the backup time is, via the plaintext manifest timestamp, an accepted
design property (issue 81).

Document the derivation once in `docs/REPOSTRUCTURE.md` with a worked
example; README, ARCHITECTURE and DATAMODEL now show the hashed layout and
link to it. Rewrite the privacy section to state what the unencrypted
manifest really exposes. Fix two code comments that claimed the public
bytes hide the timestamp. Docs and comments only; no behaviour change.

Model: opus-4-8

.gitea/workflows/check.yml

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 name: check
 on:
   push:
-    branches: [main]
+    branches: [main, next]
   pull_request:
-    branches: [main]
+    branches: [main, next]
 jobs:
   check:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest

README.md

@@ -360,7 +360,9 @@ Snapshot IDs follow the human-readable format
 `server1_home_2025-06-01T12:00:00Z`), but this ID is never written to the
 destination store in plaintext. Each snapshot's metadata directory is named
 with its `<remote-key>`, a one-way double SHA-256 hash of the ID, so a listing
-of the store reveals no hostname, snapshot name, or backup time. For example,
+of the store reveals no hostname or snapshot name. The backup time is not
+hidden: manifest.json.zst carries a plaintext timestamp, and object
+modification times are visible at the storage layer regardless. For example,
 `server1_home_2025-06-01T12:00:00Z` is stored under
 `metadata/17f97bcde958748af076b926af59823943db59e80ce7170b40f124dfa28f64aa/`.
 See [docs/REPOSTRUCTURE.md](docs/REPOSTRUCTURE.md#remote-key-derivation) for the
@@ -724,6 +726,8 @@ them. We provide:
   then the product image). Either failing fails the script. It runs the
   checks in the same containers CI does, from a clean copy of the tree,
   so it also catches anything that depends on host state.
+  `.gitea/workflows/check.yml` runs it on every push to `main` and
+  `next` and on every pull request against either.
 
   It passes a fresh `--build-arg CHECK_EPOCH` to each build, unique per
   invocation, which both files declare immediately above their check

TODO.md

@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ release" is exactly the contradiction
 
 # Completed Steps
 
+- 2026-09-21: Made `.gitea/workflows/check.yml` run on pushes to `main`
+  and `next` and on pull requests against either, so unit PRs (whose
+  base is `next`) and `next` itself get a CI run instead of relying on a
+  local `make check`
+  ([issue #122](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/vaultik/issues/122)).
+
 - 2026-08-10: Moved every lint run into its own container, as a build
   step ([issue #113](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/vaultik/issues/113)).
   New root `Dockerfile.lint`, built by `script/lint`, runs

internal/cli/snapshot.go

@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ specifying a path using --config or by setting VAULTIK_CONFIG to a path.`,
 	}
 
 	cmd.Flags().BoolVar(&opts.Cron, "cron", false,
-		"Run in cron mode (silent unless error)")
+		"Run in cron mode (silent unless warning or error)")
 	cmd.Flags().BoolVar(&opts.Prune, "prune", false,
 		"After backup, drop older snapshots of the same name and remove "+
 			"orphaned blobs")