🌱 Remove Kubeadm upstream v1beta1 types

[killianmuldoon]

Signed-off-by: killianmuldoon kmuldoon@vmware.com

Remove Kubeadm v1beta1 types from the CAPI codebase.

According to the [Kubeadm docs] "kubeadm v1.22.x and newer no longer support v1beta1 and older APIs, but can be used to migrate v1beta2 to v1beta3". CAPI no longer supportes v1.22 management clusters, and will not support v1.22 workload clusters with the release of CAPI v1.6.0.

Part of #8038

[killianmuldoon]

/area provider/bootstrap-kubeadm

[killianmuldoon]

This PR contains #8997

I'll come back to it once that PR has been merged.

[sbueringer]

-2,5k loc would be nice

[k8s-ci-robot]

@killianmuldoon: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-cluster-api-apidiff-main	6a9aa07	link	false	/test pull-cluster-api-apidiff-main

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[killianmuldoon]

With this change CAPBK will fail hard if a Cluster of v1.15.0 or older is used - I wonder if we should reject this at the webhook level.

[chrischdi]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: b57ef52bbf7465281fe7104391d0740919da10e4

[sbueringer]

With this change CAPBK will fail hard if a Cluster of v1.15.0 or older is used - I wonder if we should reject this at the webhook level.

I think this is something for the related issue around version validation across CAPI that is open since forever.
Although I'm fine to add this to the current PR if we can add this to the webhook in a relatively straightforward way

[sbueringer]

nit: v1.15 itself would work

[killianmuldoon]

Agreed - I hope nobody's trying to use current CAPI with v1.14.0 and it would probably fail pretty hard in other cases anyway.

Cross-linking the other issue: #7010

[sbueringer]

Agreed - I hope nobody's trying to use current CAPI with v1.14.0 and it would probably fail pretty hard in other cases anyway.

Cross-linking the other issue: #7010

Yup. We already have the same problem with 1.12 today 😂

[sbueringer]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [sbueringer]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment