docs(reference): sort manifest package section keys per style guide

[scop]

https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/style-guide/cargo.html

Put the [package] section at the top of the file; put the name and version keys in that order at the top of that section, followed by the remaining keys other than description in order, followed by the description at the end of that section.

Sorting only, no content changes.

[rustbot]

r? @weihanglo

rustbot has assigned @weihanglo.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[weihanglo]

For example, personally, autobenches is definitely not as important as other fields like edition, rust-version, and description. This might make the reading experience slightly worse for readers who go through it from top to bottom.

[scop]

FWIW, I agree with this, the ordering in the cargo docs seems better to me.

[weihanglo]

Thanks for the pull request!

This is a good attempt, though the ownership of the style of Carg.toml doesn't seem clear to me right now.

• Delegate Cargo.toml style guide to style team? #13313

As a consequence, we see some issues like this one:

• style-guide: Tweak Cargo.toml formatting to not put description last rust#120072

I am not sure if the style guide is settled, so maybe we should postpone this until things get clearer?

[weihanglo]

Lexicographic order makes sense for a reference-like documentation. I believe we did it for .cargo/config.toml docs. However, I feel like fields in configuration are mostly equally-important but in Cargo.toml they are not. Moving an unused field upfront doesn't seem too good.

Anyway, this is not a suggestion for you to apply. I am just sharing an example that I don't fully agree with the style guide.

[weihanglo]

cc @joshtriplett, what is your thought on this?
(as you're a member of both cargo and style teams)

[joshtriplett]

@weihanglo This portion of styling has not been finalized and does not have consensus with the Cargo team, so it's not ready to be acted on. The fact that this prompted a PR means we should remove this portion of the style guide until we have a new version that has consensus with Cargo.

[scop]

JFYI there's tooling in existence that is already making use of the style guide sort order, which kind of led to me opening this PR: dprint/dprint-plugin-toml#29

This is not to say I'd personally lean towards the style guide on this (I don't -- the one in cargo docs seem "better" to me), but as said, JFYI.