Extend DRY support into trust-manager official Helm chart

[Asif-git03]

• This PR introduces tpl support for app.webhook.tls.approverPolicy.certManagerNamespace and app.trust.namespace
• the changes allow these values to be dynamically set using helm templating, if not provided ,they default to the release namespace

[cert-manager-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign sgtcodfish for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[cert-manager-prow]

Hi @Asif-git03. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a cert-manager member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[Asif-git03]

Hi Team,

Request you to please review the PR, since the DCO signoff: yes

[Asif-git03]

Hi Team,

Could you please check on this PR once

[Asif-git03]

Hi Team,

Request you to please review the PR, since the DCO signoff: yes

[erikgb]

@Asif-git03 trust-manager is a community project and maintainers/reviewers all have day-time jobs. So please don't expect reviews when you request it. And no point "spamming". 😓

I am personally not in favor of your proposed changes. What is the use case? And how is it related to DRY? It definitely increases complexity by adding a second layer of templating. Trying to understand what your goal is, but no luck so far.....