Hi Max, Thanks for kicking off this conversation!
Can you explain more about what’s missing from our versioned docs? We can get some documentation from prior releases (example: https://iceberg.apache.org/docs/1.9.2/configuration/). The bug you mentioned was about some issues with over-indexing, but it sounds like those have been solved. I tried using mike for iceberg-python and came back frustrated. The mike CLI is very opinionated and wants to make commits for you (‘mike deploy’). This ended up not working well in our use-case. I personally would love to move towards a different documentation engine, but it’s a lot of work! I think the community would need really strong use cases that we couldn’t easily support in mkdocs to attempt a migration. Any ideas? Thanks! — Alex Stephen On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 2:48 PM Max Konstantinov < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All! > > > Background > - MkDocs community has broken down over the last couple of years, and the > project seems abandoned. You can see 0 new contributions during the last > 1.5 years: > https://github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs/graphs/contributors?from=5%2F18%2F2024. > You can find the description and discussion of the whole kerfuffle on > HackerNews' thread from March 2026 if you are interested, all previous > maintainers moved on to new projects. > - Iceberg community wanted to add versioned docs support to the Iceberg > website, see a recent thread where the need for versioned docs surfaced a > week ago: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vrt3oytl3dwo34wr07tkf73r0kkx0b1h. > > Questions > - Do you think it is still worth pursuing mike route for versioned docs as > it is based on MkDocs? See a related Iceberg issue: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/14521 > - Do you think we should look for a new doc engine altogether instead > of MkDocs? > > > Thanks, > Max. > >
