Remove '.gitpod.yml'

[NotMyFault]

The change proposed removes the .gitpod.yml file, given it's no longer used.

The company behind it turned into some AI-corp called "ONA", requiring you to enter your credit card details to use their services upfront.
Besides that, the probot application creating envs on PRs has been archived as well: https://github.com/gitpod-io/gitpod-bot

For the aforementioned reasons, I'd like to remove this file from the repository.

Testing done

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Proposed changelog entries

• human-readable text

Proposed changelog category

/label

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[daniel-beck]

Reverts #6590 I guess.

Do we know whether we got a useful contribution out of this? (Assuming that's what it was for.) @timja any idea?

[timja]

Reverts #6590 I guess.

Do we know whether we got a useful contribution out of this? (Assuming that's what it was for.) @timja any idea?

don't think so, some people tried using it a bit more in plugins or jenkins.io where it was more successful but haven't heard of it being used in awhile.

[MarkEWaite]

Reverts #6590 I guess.

Do we know whether we got a useful contribution out of this? (Assuming that's what it was for.) @timja any idea?

@gounthar used it frequently until the company switched to much more frequent pay per use. However, his use was mostly for plugins, not for contributions to Jenkins core.