Add explanation for state-into-spec in LoggingLogMetric reference doc

[maqiuyujoyce]

Change description

Added warning to the reference doc as the behavior for the state-into-spec annotation is changed after LoggingLogMetric uses the direct controller.

Also did a small clean up for the note in AlloyDBInstance.

Tests you have done

• Run make ready-pr to ensure this PR is ready for review.
• [N/A] Perform necessary E2E testing for changed resources.

[yuwenma]

nit: maybe change "ignored" to "dropped" (and remove the corresponding doc from the doc)? ignore is ambiguous because it could mean no-op or keeping-the-existing-behavior (previous default is merge) 

[maqiuyujoyce]

What about directly mentioning it is no-op? I think "dropped" might also be misleading because it could indicate the annotation won't be persisted in the KRM object, but when we do kubectl describe, we actually can still see this annotation if it is configured explicitly.

I think we can say something like:

Caution: After
[v1.118.1](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/k8s-config-connector/releases/tag/v1.118.1),
`cnrm.cloud.google.com/state-into-spec` annotation is no longer used during
LoggingLogMetric reconciliation, and [externally-managed
fields](https://cloud.google.com/config-connector/docs/concepts/managing-fields-externally)
in the existing LoggingLogMetric resources are considered managed, i.e.
Kubernetes _is_ the source of truth for these values.

@tarynlucas do you have any suggestions?

[tarynlucas]

The suggested edit LGTM! I think "no longer used" makes sense since we're explaining this as a changed behavior from a previous version.

One nit: I think in the last sentence we're putting the emphasis on the wrong thing ("is"): could we change this to say something like "...considered managed, meaning Kubernetes is the source of truth for these values instead of [whatever the pre-1.118.1 behavior was]."

Also do we mean Kubernetes resources or objects? Just saying "Kubernetes is a the source of truth" seems a bit unclear to me, but maybe I'm just not familiar with the context.

[yuwenma]

+1 to "no longer used" I like it as well.

[yuwenma]

/lgtm

Thank you! One minor comment. Shall we drop the State-into-Spec annotation from the Cloud doc?

[maqiuyujoyce]

Thank you! One minor comment. Shall we drop the State-into-Spec annotation from the Cloud doc?

We should. Though because this is configured in a shared template, removing it just for LLM may not be very straight-forward. I plan to tackle it separately.

[yuwenma]

Thank you! One minor comment. Shall we drop the State-into-Spec annotation from the Cloud doc?

We should. Though because this is configured in a shared template, removing it just for LLM may not be very straight-forward. I plan to tackle it separately.

Okay, that's fair.

[yuwenma]

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks!

[google-oss-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yuwenma

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 [yuwenma]

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