If this becomes a toolforge component, I'm thinking about discarding the toolforge-jobs abstraction that we use here and scheduling maintain-harbor jobs directly on k8s through deployment templates like we do for other repos. what do you think about that @dcaro?

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/maintain-harbor/-/merge_requests/34

Draft: [maintain-harbor] Move to become a toolforge component

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/toolforge-deploy/-/merge_requests/563

Draft: [toolforge-deploy] deploy maintain-harbor

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/maintain-harbor/-/merge_requests/36

[maintain-harbor] specify config through environment variables

Change #1090520 had a related patch set uploaded (by Raymond Ndibe; author: Raymond Ndibe):

[operations/puppet@production] profile::manifests::toolforge::bastion: add harbor url to /etc/toolforge/common.yaml

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1090520

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/lima-kilo/-/merge_requests/214

[lima-kilo] support maintain-harbor functional tests

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/builds-builder/-/merge_requests/63

[builds-builder] create toolforge harbor project

raymond-ndibe opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/maintain-harbor/-/merge_requests/38

[maintain-harbor] comment about the importance of some logs in tests

raymond-ndibe merged https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/cloud/toolforge/maintain-harbor/-/merge_requests/38

[maintain-harbor] comment about the importance of some logs in tests