github workflows: remove release tests

[ivanvc]

This workflow has already been migrated to the prow infrastructure as a presubmit job, and it's stable.

The current GitHub workflow also has a second part, which uses Trivy to check for image vulnerabilities in the generated images. However, these results overlap (or duplicate) what we obtain with govulncheck, as our images are based on a distroless static Debian image. Therefore, it only checks the etcd binaries. For example, when we had the report of GO-2024-2527, it never failed.

So, I think we can delete it. Or, maybe another approach would be to move it to a periodic job.

Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ivanvc

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:

• .github/OWNERS [ivanvc]

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

[ahrtr]

However, these results overlap (or duplicate) what we obtain with govulncheck, as our images are based on a distroless static Debian image

govulncheck is scanning the golang source code, while trivy is scanning the image. They are different. I think we need both.

For example, when we had the report of GO-2024-2527, it never failed.

Do not get time to dig into the details. It shouldn't be a reason to remove trivy.

maybe another approach would be to move it to a periodic job.

I think It's better to run trivy on each PR instead of periodically. It doesn't take too much time or resource.

[ivanvc]

As this may be a longer conversation, I opened #19363.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

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-sigs/prow repository.

[serathius]

Needs rebase

[ivanvc]

Needs rebase

@serathius, I didn't rebase because I thought we should first discuss the controversial part of this pull request either here or in #19363. If there's no discussion by next week, I'll bring the topic to the next community meeting.