I'm not running into an error, I just didn't have time to check the linter so I was wondering if it would throw an error or if it's ok with orphan pages.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 6:04 PM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> wrote: > Assuming you're referring to this markdown linter from #13977 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13977/files#diff-9b85f23b4c70aa16ae63b7e816cdfeb7312f5c941d758cb9e6f05939004e1886R243>, > I think you can change the path to `**/*.md` so it searches through all the > markdown files. > What error are you seeing from the linter? I can also ping you on Slack. > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:39 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Does anyone know if we can support an orphaned page in MkDocs without the >> new Markdown linter complaining? I'm testing >> out a build where we keep the page but disable robots/nofollow on it. >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:24 PM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Thank you, Alex! I think we can proceed with the removal first. >>> >>> I'm also +1 on an official blog for project announcements. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Liu >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:46 AM Alex Merced >>> <alex.mer...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I have new home for continued development of the list created that >>>> people will be able to make pull requests into to add blogs and will cover >>>> a few other Lakehouse related OSS projects. Will post the details early >>>> next week, earlier if possible. >>>> >>>> *Alex Merced <https://bio.alexmerced.com/data>, * >>>> *Head of DevRel, Dremio **Dremio.com* >>>> <https://www.dremio.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature&utm_term=na&utm_content=email-signature&utm_campaign=email-signature>*/ >>>> **Follow Us on LinkedIn!* <https://www.linkedin.com/company/dremio> >>>> *Resources for Getting Hands-on with Apache Iceberg/Dremio* >>>> <https://medium.com/data-engineering-with-dremio/a-deep-intro-to-apache-iceberg-and-resources-for-learning-more-be51535cff74> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:39 PM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The relevant links are either the top-level pages: >>>>> - https://iceberg.apache.org/blogs/ >>>>> - https://iceberg.apache.org/talks/ >>>>> or the individual posts they reference. Examples from each page: >>>>> - >>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/blogs/#kafka-to-iceberg-exploring-the-options >>>>> - https://iceberg.apache.org/talks/#supporting-s3-tables-in-daft >>>>> >>>>> Each post already links to an external source, so fixing the links >>>>> should be relatively easy. >>>>> >>>>> I find the current blogs and posts useful, and they serve as a nice >>>>> look back at the project’s history. However, I think we should find >>>>> another >>>>> home for this content. Just not in the iceberg.apache.org site, where >>>>> every change requires approval through the repo. >>>>> >>>>> I’m still in favor of removing these pages from the website and moving >>>>> them to another location. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kevin Liu >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:35 AM Anton Okolnychyi < >>>>> aokolnyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think the project is too big now for us to maintain the list in its >>>>>> current form. I believe the original intent was to include references to >>>>>> any mentions of Iceberg to boost visibility as there was no company that >>>>>> would sponsor any media coverage for Iceberg in early days. At that time >>>>>> the list of mentions was very small and we didn’t have any vendors. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can keep links accessible not to break books and other printed >>>>>> materials. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, +1 on an official blog with announcements similar to Flink and >>>>>> other larger projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Anton >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 4:54 PM Russell Spitzer < >>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I could see us keeping a deprecated version of the page, but I think >>>>>>> the rationale of boosting search engine impacts for blog posts that are >>>>>>> already on the page is actually one of the reasons we should remove the >>>>>>> page. As a community we don't want to have a set of "special" blog posts >>>>>>> that the project gives special importance. If posts on this page get a >>>>>>> boost on search engines that other posts don't get, it makes me a bit >>>>>>> nervous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:41 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It sounds reasonable to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For background, Apache projects have different approaches about >>>>>>>> blog: >>>>>>>> - some are using blog more like announcements for the projects but >>>>>>>> also dependent projects (https://camel.apache.org/blog/) >>>>>>>> - some are just listing blog post links related to the project >>>>>>>> (https://karaf.apache.org/documentation.html#articles) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The foundation has a blog related to news (https://news.apache.org/ >>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of blog in projects with content (because it's >>>>>>>> hard >>>>>>>> to maintain and never up to date), but I think it's valuable for the >>>>>>>> community to easily find resources about the projects. >>>>>>>> So, just a blog page with links to different blog posts is good >>>>>>>> enough >>>>>>>> (but it needs some attention to be "maintained"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just my $0.01 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:03 PM Russell Spitzer >>>>>>>> <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi Y'all >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > We talked about this a bit in a community sync a while back and I >>>>>>>> know a bunch of committers have >>>>>>>> > been working off some of the consensus we reached then but I'm >>>>>>>> not sure we ever actually documented >>>>>>>> > this. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > 1. Should the Apache Iceberg community still maintain a set of >>>>>>>> Blogs and Talks that are curated on the >>>>>>>> > main site by committers and PMC members? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The arguments in favor: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The current state requires individuals to make decisions on about >>>>>>>> inclusion/exclusion of content >>>>>>>> > It is very difficult to maintain and keep up to date >>>>>>>> > There are lots of blog and talk aggregations for Iceberg content >>>>>>>> out there already >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The arguments against: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Have an easy place for folks to find more Iceberg Content >>>>>>>> > Have a location to post internal announcements >>>>>>>> > ----------- >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Personally I think we should just drop the blogs site for now >>>>>>>> with the option of bringing back an Iceberg >>>>>>>> > dev only blog in the future and switch the Talks page to just >>>>>>>> link out to the official Youtube channel which mostly >>>>>>>> > has entries for Iceberg Summit and our community syncs. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ------- >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > 2. Should all vendor/integrations link out to external >>>>>>>> documentation rather than having in tree maintained >>>>>>>> > documentation? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > This I think is more straightforward. We have already had a lot >>>>>>>> of link-rot and Integration documentation falling behind >>>>>>>> > actual integrations. Here I really don't want to break any >>>>>>>> previous hard links to Iceberg's docs so I think we should leave >>>>>>>> > everything currently in tree, in tree. But for all new >>>>>>>> contributions and on any updates to a vendor.md or integration.md we >>>>>>>> > should always link out to third party documentation unless we are >>>>>>>> documenting something that is actually in the Iceberg >>>>>>>> > library (like S3FileIO and friends). >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Thanks as usual everyone, >>>>>>>> > Russ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Here is a PR with my suggested changes for the above two points >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14110 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
