feat!(deps): bump reqwest to 0.13

[Totodore]

Motivation

We are going to use the flagsmith rust client through its open feature provider in a complex rust project.

Because reqwest is still pinned to 0.11 it pulls a bunch of outdated deps but more importantly, the 0.11 default ssl backend is openssl. Because we make only fully static builds it breaks our build pipeline and we cant ship this.
The 0.13 version uses rustls which is entirely static.

Side notes

• I added an MSRV to Cargo.toml which follows reqwest 0.13 MSRV.
• This is technically a breaking change, although minimal because of impl From<reqwest::Error> for Error which make the reqwest error type public.

[Totodore]

Hi,

To add a bit of context, we're evaluating Flagsmith as our feature flag solution right now, and honestly one of the things we're weighing is how active/responsive the maintainers are with community PRs. If we end up actually using it, we would like to continue contributing to this project.

Moreover we might be inclined to later switch to a paid plan depending on the evolution of this project.

If someone could take a look when you have time, even just a quick pass or some early feedback, that'd help a lot. No pressure on timing, and I'm happy to tweak whatever needs tweaking to get it merged.

Thanks!

[gagantrivedi]

Hi,

To add a bit of context, we're evaluating Flagsmith as our feature flag solution right now, and honestly one of the things we're weighing is how active/responsive the maintainers are with community PRs. If we end up actually using it, we would like to continue contributing to this project.

Moreover we might be inclined to later switch to a paid plan depending on the evolution of this project.

If someone could take a look when you have time, even just a quick pass or some early feedback, that'd help a lot. No pressure on timing, and I'm happy to tweak whatever needs tweaking to get it merged.

Thanks!

Hey, we're fairly active, but like any other open source project, we're also navigating this new age of low-effort, LLM-generated pull requests. We're still figuring out how to deal with that, but since it looks like you're human :) I'll add this to my review queue.

[gagantrivedi]

Okay, I had a brief look. I don't think we can add the MSRV field without also adding a workflow to make sure we build on that version (currently we only build on latest stable). If you're up for it, you could add a workflow that builds on the MSRV. Otherwise I'd suggest we drop it for now.

Re the breaking change: yeah, I'll err on the safe side and update the title to something like feat! to make sure it's picked up by release-please as a breaking change