ci: add secondary MSRV job of 1.75.0

[oleonardolima]

partially fixes #1750

Description

It adds a secondary MSRV version of 1.75.0 for the bdk_electrum crate, excluding it from the 1.63.0 MSRV dependency pinning and CI step.

As it's the new CI will run without bdk_electrum for 1.63.0 MSRV step, will run another step for 1.75.0 MSRV and the latest stable.

Currently,, the only affected crate is electrum-client, therefore bdk-electrum, as it relies directly on rustls which migrated to 1.71.0 MSRV. The esplora-client relies on rustls as a dependency of minreq or reqwest, but those crates didn't upgraded it's rustls versions yet.

In a further PR it should also bump the electrum-client crate to it's latest version, which relies on 1.75.0 MSRV, see bitcoindevkit/rust-electrum-client#159.

Notes to the reviewers

It's open for discussion if this approach is the expected one, or another one would be better.

Changelog notice

• Add a secondary MSRV of 1.75.0 for bdk_electrum.

Checklists

All Submissions:

• I've signed all my commits
• I followed the contribution guidelines
• I ran cargo fmt and cargo clippy before committing

New Features:

• I've added tests for the new feature
• I've added docs for the new feature

Bugfixes:

• This pull request breaks the existing API
• I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
• I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR

[ValuedMammal]

I sort of like the idea of separating the "check" and "test" jobs. For example this CI run https://github.com/ValuedMammal/bdk/actions/runs/12872751304

[oleonardolima]

I sort of like the idea of separating the "check" and "test" jobs. For example this CI run https://github.com/ValuedMammal/bdk/actions/runs/12872751304

That's a good idea, I'll cherry-pick the commit.

[oleonardolima]

I sort of like the idea of separating the "check" and "test" jobs. For example this CI run https://github.com/ValuedMammal/bdk/actions/runs/12872751304

That's a good idea, I'll cherry-pick the commit.

However, @ValuedMammal any reason to not have tests run with --no-default-features too?

[ValuedMammal]

I sort of like the idea of separating the "check" and "test" jobs. For example this CI run https://github.com/ValuedMammal/bdk/actions/runs/12872751304

That's a good idea, I'll cherry-pick the commit.

However, @ValuedMammal any reason to not have tests run with --no-default-features too?

I thought the same thing and I don't know. It didn't seem like that would pick up any tests that weren't already included in --all-features, but in any case I'm in favor of running all possible tests.

[oleonardolima]

I sort of like the idea of separating the "check" and "test" jobs. For example this CI run https://github.com/ValuedMammal/bdk/actions/runs/12872751304

That's a good idea, I'll cherry-pick the commit.

However, @ValuedMammal any reason to not have tests run with --no-default-features too?

I thought the same thing and I don't know. It didn't seem like that would pick up any tests that weren't already included in --all-features, but in any case I'm in favor of running all possible tests.

I cherry-picked and add the features to matrix, but it now fails because not all crates has miniscript/no-std, I'll need to sort that out.

[oleonardolima]

Alright, I kept it all under a single build-test job, using the ./ci/pin-msrv.sh script and referring to it on README.md.

It should be ready for review.

[notmandatory]

Looks good, I found a couple nits to fix and it needs to be rebased now that #1801 is merged.

[notmandatory]

ACK c8b55da

[notmandatory]

I updated Github required checks to match changes in this PR.