Approved to unblock CI.

--

Pierre


On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:47 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Let's merge this fix ASAP to unblock PRs and follow up with a nicer
> solution later.
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:42 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Indeed, markdown link checks are inherently flaky because they rely on
> > external resources to be cooperative. This hinders PR progress.
> >
> > Here's a recent example [1]:
> >
> > ERROR: 1 dead links found!
> > [✖]
> https://medium.com/@jitenderkmr/demystifying-snowflake-ids-a-unique-identifier-in-distributed-computing-72796a827c9d
> → Status: 403
> >
> > That link works fine in a browser.
> >
> > So +1 to remove markdown link checks (we can always fix when people
> report
> > dead links).
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/actions/runs/19534001072/job/55941993028?pr=2802
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dmitri.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 6:12 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As Adam recently mentioned [1], the "Check Markdown links" workflow is
> >> known to regularly produce false failures.
> >>
> >> It seems that some external sites have somewhat aggressive rate limits
> >> and/or bot protections in place that lead to these false failures.
> >>
> >> We cannot control nor work around those externally controlled things.
> >> PRs are getting blocked by these false failures. Retrying the workflow
> >> does not help. And if the mentioned assumptions are correct, retrying
> >> actually makes the (rate limit) situation even worse, leading to
> >> other/more false failures from "Check Markdown links".
> >>
> >> I propose to remove "Check Markdown links" from the required checks
> >> [2]. The workflow would still run, but not block PRs. Reviewers can
> >> still inspect and cross-check potential failures from that workflow.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3097
> >> [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3102
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to