Fix audit deployment label

[sozercan]

Signed-off-by: Sertac Ozercan [email protected]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Audit deployment label should be audit-controller

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

Special notes for your reviewer:

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1060 (834753f) into master (5f9e98a) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1060      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   47.87%   47.94%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          62       62              
  Lines        4267     4267              
==========================================
+ Hits         2043     2046       +3     
+ Misses       1967     1965       -2     
+ Partials      257      256       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	47.94% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/readiness/ready_tracker.go	69.81% <0.00%> (+0.72%)	⬆️
pkg/readiness/objset.go	87.50% <0.00%> (+12.50%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5f9e98a...834753f. Read the comment docs.

[maxsmythe]

Should we remove these labels entirely? They are vistigial from Kubebuilder 1.0 days.

I suppose some users may have created dependencies on these labels? If so, we should probably make sure we warn them of a potentially breaking change to their setup.

[maxsmythe]

LGTM

some thoughts on whether these labels are useful and on backwards compatibility

[sozercan]

Opened #1061 for tracking deprecation