rustdoc: don't give depreciation notes special handling

[lolbinarycat]

based on discussion in #149741

we're currently using pre-wrap here which forces us to do a bunch of other hacky weird stuff, but getting rid of all that would likely break some existing docs, so i'm proposing we do it across an edition.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS.

cc @GuillaumeGomez, @lolbinarycat

[yotamofek]

Gonna let Guillaume r+, but looks good to me!

[GuillaumeGomez]

Just commented about this here. I'd personally just make the update without gating it behind next edition but seems like something worth discussing with the rest of the team.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #150645) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #150645) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[lolbinarycat]

This was discussed in this month's t-rustdoc meeting, the consensus was the edition gating should be removed and the "future edition" behavior should apply to all editions.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.