docs: add redirects

[Minh141120]

This pull request adds a large set of redirect rules to the docs/_redirects file to improve documentation navigation. The main goal is to ensure that users visiting outdated or reorganized URLs are automatically sent to the correct, updated locations, reducing confusion and broken links.

---

Important

Adds 78 redirect rules in docs/_redirects to improve documentation navigation by redirecting outdated URLs to updated locations.

• Redirects:
  • Adds 78 redirect rules in docs/_redirects to improve navigation.
  • Redirects outdated /about/ and /handbook/ URLs to /handbook.
  • Redirects various /cortex/ and /docs/ URLs to /docs/.
  • Redirects specific /docs/ URLs to /docs/desktop/ for more specific content.
  • Redirects /integrations/ and /local-server/ URLs to /docs/desktop/server-examples/ and other specific paths.

^{This description was created by for 9fb3171. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[hiento09]

LGTM

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 9923c60 in 2 minutes and 0 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 85 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/_redirects:79

• Draft comment:
  Add a trailing newline at end-of-file for POSIX compliance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While POSIX compliance for trailing newlines is a real standard, this is a redirects configuration file that will likely work fine without it. The comment is technically correct but very minor. Most build systems or linters would catch this if it was actually problematic. Per the rules, we shouldn't comment on things that would be caught by the build. The missing newline could potentially cause issues with some tools or systems that expect POSIX compliance. It's a best practice that's easy to fix. While true, this is exactly the kind of minor issue that should be handled by automated tooling rather than manual review comments. If it was critical, it would be caught by the build. Delete this comment as it's too minor and would be better handled by automated tooling if important.

2. docs/_redirects:17

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the path, 'engineering-exellence' appears. It should be spelled 'engineering-excellence'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a redirects file that maps old URLs to new ones. The purpose of such files is often to maintain backwards compatibility with existing links. If this is an existing URL that people might be using, "fixing" the typo could actually break existing links. The misspelling might be intentional to match an existing URL pattern. I might be overthinking this - typos in URLs are generally bad and should be fixed. The old URL might not even exist yet since this is a new file. Without knowing the history of these URLs and whether the misspelled version is actually in use somewhere, changing it could cause problems. The safe approach is to assume the URL structure was chosen deliberately. While it's a clear typo, in a redirects file we should be very cautious about changing URL paths as they may be intentionally matching existing patterns.

Workflow ID: wflow_Pr0Gy2tlbVpiuiz8

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[github-actions]

Preview URL: https://1e66c13a.docs-9ba.pages.dev

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 9fb3171 in 54 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 21 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/_redirects:17

• Draft comment:
  Typo fixed: changed 'engineering-exellence' to 'engineering-excellence'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

2. docs/_redirects:67

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the '/guides/integrations/continue/' redirect may affect legacy links; verify that this removal is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. docs/_redirects:17

• Draft comment:
  There was a typographical error: "engineering-exellence" has been corrected to "engineering-excellence."
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative, pointing out a typographical correction. It does not provide a suggestion or ask for confirmation of intent, nor does it relate to code functionality or testing.

Workflow ID: wflow_apujxsFrbe3VWrCW

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}