cleanup external add-ons section + add github links to components sidebar

[thesuperzapper]

This PR improves the website in the following ways:

• makes external links on the sidebar more clear (by using a "link" icon beside them)
• under each components section, adds links to the Kubeflow GitHub repos
• cleans up external add-ons, to give each add-on (which is already on the website) its own small section containing:
  1. an introduction page which answers:
     • What is XXXX?
     • How is XXXX integrated with Kubeflow?
     • How can I try XXXX?
  2. a link to the add-on's GitHub
  3. a link to the add-on's website

Screenshot

Links to Kubeflow Git Repos

Updated External Add-Ons Page

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: thesuperzapper Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign chensun 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](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/blob/master/OWNERS)** Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

[review-notebook-app[bot]]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[thesuperzapper]

@zijianjoy This should hopefully be one of the last huge website cleanups, it's one I have been putting off for ages.

It's to clean up the external add-ons section, and gives each add-on its own section under it among other things.

It adds redirects, so a root approver is needed.

[thesuperzapper]

@zijianjoy during today's community meeting, and @andreyvelich suggested that we make the warning about external-add-ons less forceful, I have updated the wording in https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640/commits/ac46adeaa68223e75a7813dd2392004f8e8c2396.

[thesuperzapper]

@zijianjoy since this is more of a structural change, you are probably the only person who can approve this, I am interested to hear any comments you have.

I think this update is important because it is the first step towards standardizing how we promote external projects.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: akchinSTC, issheng, hsinhoyeh, akfmdl.

Note that only kubeflow members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449112392): >We need Elyra folks to review this change. >Please take a look. >/assign @issheng @hsinhoyeh @akfmdl @akchinSTC Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: ssheng.

Note that only kubeflow members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449106605): >I think, we need review from BentoML folks for these changes. >/assign @yubozhao @ssheng Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: alexiguazio, mohamadmansourX.

Note that only kubeflow members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449124517): >We need MLRun folks to review this change: >/assign @alexiguazio @mohamadmansourX Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: sudohainguyen, adchia.

Note that only kubeflow members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449114940): >We need FEAST folks to review this change. >/assign @woop @sudohainguyen @adchia Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: sivanantha321.

Note that only kubeflow members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449121022): >We need KServe folks to review it. >/assign @yuzisun @terrytangyuan @sivanantha321 > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[thesuperzapper]

@jbottum @andreyvelich as discussed in the community meeting today, my request is that we review these changes for any significant issues, and if none are raised in the next few weeks, we merge it.

Because the diff is hard to understand (because it has a lot of reformatting with minimal actual content changes), I recommend people use the deploy preview to browse the updated "external add-ons" section and get a feel for if they think it is better than the current website state:

• https://deploy-preview-3640--competent-brattain-de2d6d.netlify.app/

[andreyvelich]

Thank you for the update @thesuperzapper, I want to hear thoughts for this comment: https://github.com/kubeflow/website/pull/3640#discussion_r1449103091 cc @jbottum @akgraner

Please other WG leads review this PR: cc @kubeflow/release-team @kubeflow/wg-training-leads @kubeflow/wg-pipeline-leads @kubeflow/wg-notebooks-leads @kubeflow/wg-manifests-leads

[thesuperzapper]

@andreyvelich we should try and get this refactor merged, as the external add-on pages are really out of date right now.

[andreyvelich]

@andreyvelich we should try and get this refactor merged, as the external add-on pages are really out of date right now.

I agree, do we want to keep external add-ons in our website only for folks who are currently active and remove out-of-date docs ?
For example, @franciscojavierarceo recently updated FEAST docs and we should keep them.

E.g. I asked various docs owners to check their docs on Jan 11th, and we didn't get any responses.

Any thoughts @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee ?

[franciscojavierarceo]

For example, @franciscojavierarceo recently updated FEAST docs and we should keep them.

Happy to contribute some meaningful updates here!