docker-bake: drop JDK 17 from weekly and future LTS controller images

[Pnkcaht]

PR description

This change updates the Docker build matrix to stop producing Jenkins controller images
based on JDK 17 for weekly releases and future LTS lines.

JDK 17 is no longer the recommended baseline for upcoming Jenkins releases, and keeping it
in the controller image matrix increases maintenance and build cost without clear benefit.
The default and supported JDKs remain unchanged for existing LTS lines.

The logic was centralized in docker-bake helpers to clearly distinguish weekly versus LTS
release lines and to make future JDK policy changes explicit and easier to maintain.

Fixes #2187

Testing done

This change was validated by exercising the docker-bake evaluation locally.

The modified logic was verified by running docker-bake in dry-run / inspection mode to ensure:

• JDK 17 is excluded from weekly controller image targets
• JDK 17 is excluded from future LTS controller image targets
• Existing LTS release lines continue to resolve the expected JDK matrix
• Tag and platform generation remains unchanged for supported JDKs

No container images were built as part of this validation, since the change only affects
build matrix resolution and tag generation logic.

Submitter checklist

• Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!
• Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry
• Please describe what you did
• Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira
• Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes
• Ensure you have provided tests that demonstrate the feature works or the issue is fixed

[MarkEWaite]

@Pnkcaht I think the preferred choice is already available as a draft pull request:

• Remove JDK17 from controller images #2187

[Pnkcaht]

@Pnkcaht I think the preferred choice is already available as a draft pull request:

• Remove JDK17 from controller images #2187

@MarkEWaite @lemeurherve Thanks for the quick feedback and thumbs up!

This PR implements the release-line-aware drop as discussed in #2187:

• Excludes JDK17 from weekly and future LTS
• Preserves it for the current LTS (2.541.x)

Centralized the logic in docker-bake helpers for easier maintenance. Tested locally and it works fine.

If this aligns with the planned approach (or if there's a separate draft to merge into), let me know – happy to adjust! ❤️👍

[lemeurherve]

You should have looked at open pull requests before opening yours:

• #2179

@MarkEWaite @lemeurherve Thanks for the quick feedback and thumbs up!

My 👍 on Mark's comment was not meant as thumbs up for your PR.

This PR implements the release-line-aware drop as discussed in #2187:

• Excludes JDK17 from weekly and future LTS
• Preserves it for the current LTS (2.541.x)

Centralized the logic in docker-bake helpers for easier maintenance. Tested locally and it works fine.

If this aligns with the planned approach (or if there's a separate draft to merge into), let me know – happy to adjust! ❤️

It does not take in account the Windows images, nor the dedicated weekly/lts variables for the JDKs to build introduced during all the preparatory work that went into this removal:

• #2178

Please hold back and look around before your next comment or pull request.

[Pnkcaht]

You should have looked at open pull requests before opening yours:

• feat: remove JDK17 from Weekly releases #2179

@lemeurherve you're right, I missed #2179 and the related #2178.

This PR aimed to cover the full release-line-aware drop from #2187 (weekly + future LTS, with helpers for easier future changes).

Happy to close this one and contribute to #2179/#2178 if that helps consolidate the effort. Let me know the best way forward.

[lemeurherve]

You should have looked at open pull requests before opening yours:

• feat: remove JDK17 from Weekly releases #2179

@lemeurherve you're right, I missed #2179 and the related #2178.

This PR aimed to cover the full release-line-aware drop from #2187 (weekly + future LTS, with helpers for easier future changes).

Happy to close this one and contribute to #2179/#2178 if that helps consolidate the effort. Let me know the best way forward.

Tthere is nothing left to do until that last PR #2189 is ready and merged, cf #2179 (comment)

I'd suggest closing this PR.

[Pnkcaht]

Closing due to overlap with #2179 and #2178 as pointed out. Thanks for the feedback @lemeurherve – will check open PRs more thoroughly next time.