[DOC] Remove outdated multi-gpu dask-cudf overview from docs

[beckernick]

We should remove https://docs.rapids.ai/api/cudf/stable/dask-cudf.html from the docs, as it is outdated and potentially confusing. Dask-cuDF is covered in other documentation.

[harrism]

@rjzamora Is this your bailiwick?

[rjzamora]

@rjzamora Is this your bailiwick?

It probably should be. I haven't dealt with documentation much in the past, but I'd be happy to give it more attention.

[rjzamora]

Dask-cuDF is covered in other documentation.

@beckernick - I agree that the "Multi-GPU with Dask-cuDF" page should be removed. However, it doesn't seem that Dask-cuDF is very well documented in other places. Perhaps it makes sense for us to add a README to cudf/python/dask_cudf? The 10-min introduction does a nice job comparing cudf with Dask-cuDF, but I think it would be ideal to have a dedicated Dask-cuDF landing page with useful information. What do you think?

[beckernick]

I think that's consistent with the general trend we're moving in @rjzamora . cuML did something similar for the Forest Inference Library. We should take care to note that Github SEO is not that good for files down in the tree, so we may want to replicate the information in actual hosted documentation

[github-actions]

This issue has been marked rotten due to no recent activity in the past 90d. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed.

[harrism]

@beckernick @rjzamora what should we do here?

[beckernick]

We still need to remove this documentation and replace it with a simple summary + links out to other relevant documentation.

@rjzamora I see you closed #6665 due to it going stale. Would you recommend we continue from where that PR left off and expand the README with additional links and references?

[rjzamora]

I'm sorry for letting this issue and #6665 go stale - Totally my fault for not prioritizing documentation enough.

Would you recommend we continue from where that PR left off and expand the README with additional links and references?

Yes. I agree that the easiest approach is to open a fresh PR with the same changes, but to improve/expand the README.

[github-actions]

This issue has been labeled inactive-90d due to no recent activity in the past 90 days. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed.