✨ Promote feature CRS to GA

[mcbenjemaa]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Promote ClusterResourceSet to GA,
Make the CRS feature GA and enabled by default, and make the CRS feature clear in the API and documentation.
the code organization will be held in following PR after this is released

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):

Ref #11114

/area api
/area clusterresourceset
/area documentation

[mcbenjemaa]

/cc fabriziopandini

[fabriziopandini]

@mcbenjemaa It would be nice if we can rebase this PR
@chrischdi @vincepri @enxebre What is your opinion about graduating CRS to GA? (follow up of the work to assess all the existing feature flags).

I'm personally +1, considering we did a good work to define scope and limitations of this feature in the last iteration on https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/docs/proposals/20200220-cluster-resource-set.md + we have https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/docs/proposals/20220712-cluster-api-addon-orchestration.md in case someone something more sophisticated.
(I'm also ok consider merging this after code freeze, if you need some more time)

[chrischdi]

@mcbenjemaa It would be nice if we can rebase this PR @chrischdi @vincepri @enxebre What is your opinion about graduating CRS to GA? (follow up of the work to assess all the existing feature flags).

I'm personally +1, considering we did a good work to define scope and limitations of this feature in the last iteration on main/docs/proposals/20200220-cluster-resource-set.md + we have main/docs/proposals/20220712-cluster-api-addon-orchestration.md in case someone something more sophisticated. (I'm also ok consider merging this after code freeze, if you need some more time)

I'm good with getting this to GA.

[chrischdi]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: f93d562e33f79fc162196a0d5d62e257a96a5ad4

[mcbenjemaa]

So this should go to v1.9 or to the next one?

[fabriziopandini]

We are not in rush, Let's move to 1.10
But let's bring this up in one of the next office hours, so we can hopefully get some traction + set a lazy consensus and try to get this out of the table soon

[k8s-ci-robot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[chrischdi]

lgtm from my side, just nits

[sbueringer]

@mcbenjemaa Do you have time to address @chrischdi's findings above? I think once these are fixed we can merge the PR

[mcbenjemaa]

I'm ready

[sbueringer]

Thank you!

/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

[elmiko]

changes lgtm, i'll leave the tag to another though as i'm just reviewing this for the first time.