[WIP] Address review feedback (round 2)

Author: jieyouxu

content/inside-rust/stage0-std-redesign.md renamed to content/inside-rust/stage0-redesign/index.md

@@ -14,18 +14,20 @@ team_url = "https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/infra#team-bootstrap"
 
 We are reworking how the stage 0 bootstrap sequence works (the sequence used to build a stage 1 compiler).
 
-- Before: a stage 0 (possibly beta) compiler is used to build the in-tree std, which in turn is used to build the stage 1 compiler.
-- After: a stage 0 (possibly beta) compiler and a precompiled stage 0 std is instead used to build the stage 1 compiler.
+- Before: a stage 0 (beta by default) compiler is used to build the in-tree std, which in turn is used to build the stage 1 compiler.
+- After: a stage 0 (beta by default) compiler and a precompiled stage 0 std is instead used to build the stage 1 compiler.
 
-Notably, this means:
+![Difference in stage 0 bootstrap sequence](stage0-redesign-diff.svg)
+
+Notably, this means that after [redesign stage 0 std #119899](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119899) PR lands:
 
 - `./x {build,test,check} library --stage 0` becomes no-op, as stage 0 std is no longer the built in-tree std, and the minimum supported stage to build std is now `1`.
     - Consequently, default (test, check, bench) stage values in the library profile are no longer `0`, but instead defaults to `1`.
-- `cfg(bootstrap)` is no longer needed for library development. In (very) rare cases, `cfg(bootstrap)` may be needed in the compiler for dogfooding unstable library features.
+- Some additional `cfg(bootstrap)` usages may be needed in the compiler sources for dogfooding unstable library features.
 
 ## Motivation
 
-The previous stage 0 bootstrapping sequence was a source of endless confusion for compiler, library and bootstrap contributors alike, because std had to support being built by *both* a previous possibly-beta rustc and in-tree rustc, with `cfg(bootstrap)` in std sources necessary to distinguish between them. By adjusting the stage 0 bootstrap sequence to instead use a precompiled stage 0 std instead of building the in-tree std, we hope to (1) simplify library development workflow to no longer need `cfg(bootstrap)` and (2) enable simplifying some bootstrap logic related to building in-tree std in stage 0.
+The previous stage 0 bootstrapping sequence was a source of endless confusion for compiler, library and bootstrap contributors alike, because std had to support being built by *both* a previous beta rustc and in-tree rustc, with `cfg(bootstrap)` in std sources necessary to distinguish between them. By adjusting the stage 0 bootstrap sequence to instead use a precompiled stage 0 std instead of building the in-tree std, we hope to (1) simplify library development workflow to no longer need `cfg(bootstrap)` and (2) enable simplifying some bootstrap logic related to building in-tree std in stage 0.
 
 This was [originally proposed by @jyn514 in the MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#619](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/619).
 
@@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ See the *Recommended config: have `compiletest` instead depend on precompiled st
 
 ## What does this mean for a typical compiler workflow?
 
-- If unstable library features are being dogfooded, in rare cases `cfg(bootstrap)` may now be needed in compiler sources.
+- If unstable library features are being dogfooded, some additional `cfg(bootstrap)` usages may now be needed in compiler sources.
 
 ### Caveat: `libtest` changes