rewrite compiler team documentation

[davidtwco]

cc @rust-lang/compiler

This is a rewrite/restructuring of all of our documentation in forge.rust-lang.org - I removed some content is removed because it was better suited to the dev guide, and shuffled around/updated most of the rest. I wasn't especially good at commit hygiene in this PR, so it's all a bit muddled together unfortunately.

Most notably, I've added a big section on what combination of RFC/MCP/FCP/r+ you need for any given change - which is something that we often find ambiguous. None of the decisions I've made in that section are necessarily final, just what I thought made sense - happy to adjust.

Rendered

[apiraino]

removed some content [...] and shuffled around/updated most of the rest

I assume then there will be dead links. Which maybe should be handled in the book.toml file?

[jieyouxu]

removed some content [...] and shuffled around/updated most of the rest

I assume then there will be dead links. Which maybe should be handled in the book.toml file?

Probably only if a redirection makes sense.

[apiraino]

removed some content [...] and shuffled around/updated most of the rest

I assume then there will be dead links. Which maybe should be handled in the book.toml file?

Probably only if a redirection makes sense.

IMO Any dead link this patch is creating (if any) would make sense to be redirected (didn't look closely into that yet)

[apiraino]

I've added a big section on what combination of RFC/MCP/FCP/r+ you need for any given change - which is something that we often find ambiguous

I focused a bit on these changes and I'm not yet fully sold about removing this content separation. Though the new version is very clear, will it be equally clear to the reader?

And at the same time search engine friendly. Right now our MCP page is the first clear hit I see on DuckDuckGo (and google)

Screenshot

just my .2 cents

[davidtwco]

I can look into adding redirects once we're happy with the content.

I've added a big section on what combination of RFC/MCP/FCP/r+ you need for any given change - which is something that we often find ambiguous
I focused a bit on these changes and I'm not yet fully sold about removing this content separation. Though the new version is very clear, will it be equally clear to the reader?

I think it is clearer to the reader, but if we wanted to try and solicit some feedback from team members who haven't looked at this yet, members of other teams, or just members of the community who might want to make a contribution and know what to do, then we can do that.

[jieyouxu]

I have some more nits, but this looks good to me in general

[apiraino]

thanks for this great work

[davidtwco]

Resolved all the feedback above and added redirects.

[davidtwco]

Merging this so that we can base more documentation improvements on it, it's received reviews and approvals above.