Hi Ludo’ ,

first thanks a lot for your review,

On 3/10/25 14:52, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I see two issues here:
>
>    1. This is stepping on the toes of upstream: why are we providing a
>       non-trivial program like this downstream?

In my understanding this is the fundamental issue, which could be a 
shipstopper. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We kind of are obviously 
even if restic-guix is already in the master branch ( ) . In my opinion 
the way forward should be: a. In this scenario we merge the current 
72803 (after addressing your other comments) and we take this risk

b. In this scenario we remove completely the current incomplete 
restic-guix command implementation from master, as it makes not much 
sense to have it incomplete as it is right now.

I view scenario a and scenario b as mutually exclusive but I may be 
missing some implication, what is your opinion on this?

>    2. There are stylistic issues: use of ‘first’ & co. (info "(guix) Data
>       Types and Pattern Matching"), use of ‘error’ (it is too generic and
>       user-unfriendly), custom argument parsing procedure.

I will address these comments only if we decide to go forward with 
scenario a.


Thank you so much for your work,


cheers

giacomo