docs: update readme

[Yggdrasill501]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Restructured README with a new top navigation (Website/Docs/Changelog/Community) and reorganized content blocks.
  • Updated header image placement and display.
  • Added an "Install via pip" flow with prerequisites and a pip install snippet; clarified installation steps.
  • Standardized headers, bullet formatting, and section capitalization; clarified compatibility and JupyterLab version notes.
  • Replaced License/Development sections with Contributing and community guidance; updated footer branding.

[linear]

MAR-350 Fix inconsistencies across the readmes

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

README content and structure were reorganized and reformatted: the cover image path changed to ./assets/deepnote-cover-image.png and is centered; navigation was replaced with a Website/Docs/Changelog/Community line; header levels and several section titles/capitalization were normalized (e.g., Key features → ##, JupyterLab version support, Maintenance policy, Backwards compatibility); License and Development sections were removed and replaced by Contributing and community guidance; an "Install via pip" subsection with prerequisites and a pip install snippet was added; footer text changed to "Built with 💙". No code, API, or exported-entity changes.

Possibly related PRs

• docs: publishing preparations #53: Overlapping README and package metadata edits (intro, branding, docs navigation).
• docs: update readme #49: README reorganization affecting installation, badges, and section structure.
• docs: update cover image in readme #68: README cover image and presentation changes (path/usage).

Suggested reviewers

• dinohamzic
• jamesbhobbs
• saltenasl

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
Title Check	❓ Inconclusive	The title "docs: update readme" is technically related to the changeset, which does modify README.md. However, it's overly generic and vague, failing to communicate what aspects are being updated. The actual changes encompass restructuring content, standardizing formatting and headers, reorganizing navigation, and improving the installation section. A teammate scanning the history would gain little insight from "update readme" about the scope or nature of these changes. The source branch name reveals the intent—fixing inconsistencies—but the title doesn't capture this meaningful context.	Consider revising the title to be more specific about the primary changes, such as "docs: restructure readme with consistent formatting and navigation" or "docs: fix readme inconsistencies and improve installation section" to better communicate the changeset's scope to reviewers and the project history.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1236b04 and 6e16406.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• assets/deepnote-cover-image.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (5 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: check_release
• GitHub Check: build

🔇 Additional comments (13)

README.md (13)

10-10: Navigation links look good. Consistent tracking parameters and clear routing.

---

14-16: Title and intro are clear.

---

18-24: Features well-structured. Clear bullets with consistent formatting.

---

26-56: Installation section complete. Clear prerequisites, pip command, and verification steps.

---

57-71: Usage instructions clear and logical.

---

73-80: Architecture section informative.

---

131-160: Version support and policy well-documented. Clear semver strategy and compatibility bounds.

---

162-168: Community guidance section helpful. Good resource links and clear next steps.

---

170-172: Contributing section concise.

---

176-177: Footer branding updated cleanly.

---

121-129: Uninstall instructions clear.

---

82-120: Troubleshooting section reference verified.

CONTRIBUTING.md exists at repository root; README.md reference is valid.

---

3-3: Image file verified—no issues.

The asset deepnote-cover-image.png exists in the repository. The relative path fix is correct and resolves the previous build blocker.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.56%. Comparing base (5e6178b) to head (6e16406).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #69   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.56%   69.56%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines         253      253           
  Branches       28       28           
=======================================
  Hits          176      176           
  Misses         73       73           
  Partials        4        4           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

README.md (1)

1-177: Fix Prettier formatting issues in README.md.

Prettier check confirms code style violations. Run prettier --write README.md to resolve.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5e6178b and 8f8a1c2.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

• assets/deepnote-jupyterlab-cover-image.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• deepnote-jupyterlab-cover-image.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (6 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 GitHub Actions: Build

README.md

[error] 1-1: README.md: README contains an absolute path image link:

🪛 GitHub Actions: CI

README.md

[warning] 1-1: Code style issues found in README.md. Run Prettier with --write to fix.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: check_release

🔇 Additional comments (1)

README.md (1)

10-10: Content and structural improvements look solid.

Navigation links, section reorganization (Contributing added, Development removed), installation clarity, and version support documentation all strengthen the README. Once the build and Prettier issues are resolved, this is good to merge.

Also applies to: 14-25, 32-40, 56-71, 132-159, 161-163, 177-177