Update the shown installed rust version to 1.0

[coffeejunk]

Rust is out of beta 🎉

r? @steveklabnik

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

[Stebalien]

Could you fix the links as well (see #25489)?

[coffeejunk]

Done @Stebalien

[alexcrichton]

@bors: r+ e095e39 rollup

Thanks!

[Stebalien]

@alexcrichton Could you backport this to the 1.0 book?

[steveklabnik]

We do not do doc backports.

[Stebalien]

@steveklabnik Why not? The link in the doc is wrong and this is the second person to download the wrong rust.

[steveklabnik]

There will always be things wrong in every release. You could also make the case that a new bug that gets fixed on master should be backported, because rustc does something wrong.

So, given that no software is perfect, you have to ask 'what's the criteria for backporting'? And, given that we already release new y (as in x.y.z) versions of the compiler every six weeks, z versions are basically only going to be released for security or soundness reasons. So that's why things won't be backported to 1.0.

You could make an argument about backporting to 1.1, but we've decided generally to be very conservative with the stable branch. That's part of it being stable. I may end up doing a few particularly egregious fixes, like the table formatting in the stack and the heap, if that didn't make it in before beta, but that's only for 1.1: in general, after that, we won't be doing any doc backporting generally.

[Stebalien]

Fair enough.