docs: use QGB permalinks to appease markdown link check

[rootulp]

Closes #2749

Note: we've discussed avoiding backporting docs changes so we can close this PR if we're okay with markdown link check failing on the v1.x branch from now on.

Testing

On the v1.x branch, locally make markdown-link-check passes

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2750 (42f8503) into v1.x (ada7750) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             v1.x    #2750   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   20.20%   20.20%           
=======================================
  Files         139      139           
  Lines       16237    16237           
=======================================
  Hits         3280     3280           
  Misses      12649    12649           
  Partials      308      308           

[rach-id]

Thanks for handling this. I think it would be better to use x/blobstream in the link and keep main branch instead of referring to old docs before the rename.

[rootulp]

I think links to docs should use permalinks so that we don't break the links again due to a future rename or docs move. Also I think it's a bit confusing that the v1.x branch contains references to "qgb" and then links to "blobstream" docs. If we do that, the docs should clarify the name change.

[rach-id]

True, we're planning to write a small ADR around renaming so that it's more clear

[rootulp]

IDK what to do for this PR but I don't think we should remain content with CI ❌ s on all future PRs to the v1.x branch. Three options I can see to get this moving forward (in order of preference from most preferred to least):

1. Remove the broken code links entirely
2. Replace the broken code links with permalinks to v1.x code
3. Replace the broken code links with permalinks to the same code on main. IMO confusing b/c the rename from QGB -> Blobstream which wasn't fully backported to v1.x

Ultimately I defer to you @sweexordious b/c you're the primary owner on QGB docs