Clarify BloomFilter.put return value under concurrency - #8597

Yeh bhi ek achha open PR hai (google/guava #8597) chaliye is ka review likhte hain:

Review:

This is a meaningful correctness clarification for concurrent usage of BloomFilter.put(), and the change is well-scoped to just the Javadoc.

Core addition is the right one: the new sentence "In the absence of concurrent calls to put, ... With concurrent calls, multiple calls may return true for the same object" directly addresses a subtle race that the old doc glossed over. Without this qualifier, a reader could reasonably (and incorrectly) assume the "opposite of mightContain" guarantee always holds — which breaks down under concurrent puts racing on the same bits.
Why this matters in practice: someone using the return value of put() to decide "am I the first caller to add this object" (a common dedup pattern with Bloom filters) needs to know that under concurrency this signal isn't reliable multiple threads can all see true. Calling that out explicitly, rather than leaving it implied, is exactly the kind of thing that prevents a subtle production bug.
Wording is precise: "In the absence of concurrent calls to put" as the qualifier for the deterministic behavior, followed by the concurrent caveat at the end, reads clearly and doesn't require re-reading the whole doc block to understand which part applies when.
One thing worth double-checking: the doc doesn't say whether all concurrent callers can get true, or just "more than one" — i.e., is it possible for zero callers to get true even though the object was in fact newly added? If that's a real possibility (depends on the implementation's synchronization), it might be worth clarifying so readers don't assume "at least one caller gets true" as a hard guarantee. If the implementation guarantees at least one true, that's worth stating too, since it's the more useful invariant for callers.
Scope is clean single doc comment, no logic touched, matches the PR title exactly.

Good, precise fix. Approving, with the note above as an optional follow-up for extra clarity.