On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:14:24AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: > Leo Famulari (2016-03-23 00:25 +0300) wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:20:37PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: > [...] > >> The rest looks good to me, so if you checked that this program works, I > >> think you can push this patchset. > > > > I've been using this program for a few months without problems (yes, I > > do restore from time to time). > > > > It's being developed very rapidly for something so critical as a backup > > program, so I think that it's still a bit experimental. I could allude > > to that in the description. What do you think? > > I don't know :-) Do what seems appropriate to you, I think it will be > OK in any case. >
I've been using attic for about 2 months. I checked the github and it looks like they've recently hit their 1.0.0 release, and they've commited to keeping API-compatability to at least 2.0. If their software is as widely used and developed upon as they say it is, their own developer-users won't likely break their own backup chain easily/lightly. -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
