[release-19.0] Remove mysql57 from docker images

[frouioui]

Description

This PR is a follow up of #16622 where we removed some of the mysql 57 docker images, but some were forgotten. We were still trying to build mysql57 images for the new v19.0 patch release even though if we don't publish any more mysql57 bootstrap image.

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.36%. Comparing base (51d8840) to head (1575d79).
Report is 1 commits behind head on release-19.0.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-19.0   #16763      +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage         67.37%   67.36%   -0.01%     
================================================
  Files              1560     1560              
  Lines            193266   193266              
================================================
- Hits             130214   130202      -12     
- Misses            63052    63064      +12     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[deepthi]

There seem to be a bunch of inconsistencies, but if we need to merge this right away, that's fine. Otherwise it will be good to fix them.

[deepthi]

Why does this not have mysql80?

[frouioui]

For the base image we do not publish a vitess/base:v19.0.6-mysql80 image. We only publish the following:

vitess/base:v19.0.6    <<<---- is in fact mysql80
vitess/base:v19.0.6-percona80

Starting in v20 we got rid of the base image, I would not suggest fixing this irregularity since v19 will be dropped in 5 months.

[deepthi]

Is latest the same as mysql80? Same image with two tags?

[frouioui]

That's correct, we have a static link between ./docker/lite/Dockerfile and ./docker/lite/Dockerfile.mysql80, they're exactly the same Dockerfile. But for the lite image, we do explicitly push three different tags:

# For a tag/release:

vitess/lite:v19.0.6
vitess/lite:v19.0.6-mysql80
vitess/lite:v19.0.6-percona80

# For a commit to the main branch, only without the tag without suffix:

vitess/lite:v19.0.6

This behavior has been correct in v20+, we stopped publishing the extra ...-mysql80 image as it became irrelevant.

[deepthi]

I suppose no one has asked for a percona80 version of this image.

[frouioui]

Not that I am aware of, but we could easily add it if needed.