Depend on Tahoe-LAFS 1.17.0

[exarkun]

Bump the dependency on Tahoe-LAFS to 1.17.0. This is the library-dependency change. This is different from the node-dependency change (which is widened to include 1.17.0 by #601).

Stacked on #601
Fixes #597

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #602 (7d4e716) into main (8b3f579) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #602   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.00%   92.00%           
=======================================
  Files          38       38           
  Lines        3991     3991           
  Branches      492      492           
=======================================
  Hits         3672     3672           
  Misses        219      219           
  Partials      100      100           

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	73.59% <ø> (ø)
unit-test	89.85% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8b3f579...7d4e716. Read the comment docs.

[exarkun]

The CI failures are different from each other but also both against Tahoe-LAFS 1.14. I wonder if they're problems with 1.14 or just intermittent failures.

[meejah]

The CI failures are different from each other but also both against Tahoe-LAFS 1.14. I wonder if they're problems with 1.14 or just intermittent failures.

Do we care about 1.14? Maybe should just drop it now...

[exarkun]

The CI failures are different from each other but also both against Tahoe-LAFS 1.14. I wonder if they're problems with 1.14 or just intermittent failures.

Do we care about 1.14? Maybe should just drop it now...

Seems reasonable to me. It's over 20 months old and 1.15 has been available for over over 14 months. That said, I don't know if 1.14 is really the problem here or if it just got unlucky.

[meejah]

The CI failures are different from each other but also both against Tahoe-LAFS 1.14. I wonder if they're problems with 1.14 or just intermittent failures.

Do we care about 1.14? Maybe should just drop it now...

Seems reasonable to me. It's over 20 months old and 1.15 has been available for over over 14 months. That said, I don't know if 1.14 is really the problem here or if it just got unlucky.

I think "unlucky" -- some of the magic-folder-api subcommands read the config-database and "sometimes" they get unlucky on mac or windows where you can't read the database like that (see #591 )

[meejah]

/cc @crwood