This adds a dep on hashable, but it's a free dependency, since
unordered-containers already pulled it in.
Using unordered-containers for the set seems to make sense, since it
hashes and bloom filter hashes too. (Though different hashes.)
I dunno, never quite know if I should use unordered-containers or containers.
In stack-lts-12.14.yaml, there were dep issues using the new libraries,
which may not be resolvable with those old versions. Didn't check, just
disabled using the libraries there, which will hold us for a couple
years.
(It would probably be easy enough to relax some of the dep versions in
http-client-restricted and git-lfs to the older versions.)
Trivial since git-annex cannot remove, but do an active checkKey verification
anyway, in case the data was lost somehow.
This commit was sponsored by Ryan Newton on Patreon.
Looked into this, and dropKey from web actually removes the url,
so git-annex won't try to get content from it.
So, if lockContent were implemented for web, and the web was left as the
only thing containing an object, another repo could at the same time
drop from web and remove its url, leaving no way to get the object.
Add to that, of course, the web is typically set untrusted, and so
implementing lockContent would not then be useful.
Similar reasoning applies to the bittorrent special remote, as well
as the fact that it does not even implement checkKey.
Made several special remotes support locking content on them while
dropping, which allows dropping from another special remote when the
content will only remain on a special remote of these types.
In both cases, verify the content is present actively, because it's
certianly possible for things other than git-annex to have removed it.
Worth thinking about what to do if at some later point, git-lfs gains
support for dropping content, and a content locking operation.
That would probably need a transition; first would need to make lockContent
use the locking operation. Then, once enough time had passed that we can
assume any git-annex operating on the git-lfs remote had that change,
git-annex could finally allow dropping from git-lfs.
Or, it could be that git-lfs gains support for dropping content, but not
locking it. In that case, it seems this commit would need to be reverted,
and then wait long enough for that git-annex to be everywhere, and only
then can git-annex safely support dropping from git-lfs.
So, the assumption made in this commit could lead to bother later.. But I
think it's actually highly unlikely git-lfs does ever support dropping;
it's outside their centralized model. Probably. :) Worth keeping in mind as
the same assumption is made about other special remotes though.
This commit was sponsored by Ethan Aubin.
This is a fairly hard to understand situation for the user. Listing the
remotes should help them understand it a bit better.
This commit was sponsored by Ethan Aubin.
