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.
This does not change the overall license of the git-annex program, which
was already AGPL due to a number of sources files being AGPL already.
Legally speaking, I'm adding a new license under which these files are
now available; I already released their current contents under the GPL
license. Now they're dual licensed GPL and AGPL. However, I intend
for all my future changes to these files to only be released under the
AGPL license, and I won't be tracking the dual licensing status, so I'm
simply changing the license statement to say it's AGPL.
(In some cases, others wrote parts of the code of a file and released it
under the GPL; but in all cases I have contributed a significant portion
of the code in each file and it's that code that is getting the AGPL
license; the GPL license of other contributors allows combining with
AGPL code.)
This is needed because when preferred content matches on files,
the second pass would otherwise want to drop all keys. Using a bloom filter
avoids this, and in the case of a false positive, a key will be left
undropped that preferred content would allow dropping. Chances of that
happening are a mere 1 in 1 million.
This makes git annex unused use around 48 mb more memory than it did before,
but the massive increase in accuracy makes this worthwhile for all but the
smallest systems.
Also, I want to use the bloom filter for sync --all --content, to avoid
dropping files that the preferred content doesn't want, and 1/1000
false positives would be far too many in that use case, even if it were
acceptable for unused.
Actual memory use numbers:
1000: 21.06user 3.42system 0:26.40elapsed 92%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 501552maxresident)k
1000000: 21.41user 3.55system 0:26.84elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 549496maxresident)k
10000000: 21.84user 3.52system 0:27.89elapsed 90%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 549920maxresident)k
Based on these numbers, 10 million seemed a better pick than 1 million.
