Avoid trying to git push/pull to special remotes, but still do transfer
scans of them, after git pull from any other remotes, so we know about
any values that have been placed on them.
The expensive transfer scan now scans a whole set of remotes in one pass.
So at startup, or when network comes up, it will run only once.
Note that this can result in transfers from/to higher cost remotes being
queued before other transfers of other content from/to lower cost remotes.
Before, low cost remotes were scanned first and all their transfers came
first. When multiple transfers are queued for a key, the lower cost ones
are still queued first. However, this could result in transfers from slow
remotes running for a long time while transfers of other data from faster
remotes waits.
I expect to make the transfer queue smarter about ordering
and/or make it allow multiple transfers at a time, which should eliminate
this annoyance. (Also, it was already possible to get into that situation,
for example if the network was up, lots of transfers from slow remotes
might be queued, and then a disk is mounted and its faster transfers have
to wait.)
Also note that this means I don't need to improve the code in
Assistant.Sync that currently checks if any of the reconnected remotes
have diverged, and if so, queues scans of all of them. That had been very
innefficient, but now doesn't matter.
Found a very cheap way to determine when a disconnected remote has
diverged, and has new content that needs to be transferred: Piggyback on
the git-annex branch update, which already checks for divergence.
However, this does not check if new content has appeared locally while
disconnected, that should be transferred to the remote.
Also, this does not handle cases where the two git repos are in sync,
but their content syncing has not caught up yet.
This code could have its efficiency improved:
* When multiple remotes are synced, if any one has diverged, they're
all queued for transfer scans.
* The transfer scanner could be told whether the remote has new content,
the local repo has new content, or both, and could optimise its scan
accordingly.
