Bump minimum supported remoting version

[strangelookingnerd]

Bump the minimum supported remoting.jar version to 3176.v207ec082a_8c0

See #25975 (comment) for some context

Testing done

Verified in #25975

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Proposed changelog entries

• Bump the minimum supported remoting.jar version to 3176.v207ec082a_8c0.

Proposed changelog category

/label internal, developer, dependencies, rfe

Proposed upgrade guidelines

See https://github.com/jenkinsci/remoting/releases/tag/3176.v207ec082a_8c0 and jenkinsci/remoting@3107.v665000b_51092...3176.v207ec082a_8c0

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@jglick

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[jglick]

@timja I do not understand the purpose of the duplication in #9459

[timja]

Workaround to allow renovate to update remoting but not the minimum, can’t just exclude the dep as then it wouldn’t update remoting

[MarkEWaite]

This PR is now ready for merge. We will merge it after approximately 24 hours if there is no negative feedback.

/label ready-for-merge

[daniel-beck]

Noting #9569 which increases the minimum version further to enable cleanup. This PR is more conservative, so does not supersede the other.