Closes #24

* Runs on every push (commit & tag)

* Build bita for windows, linux and linux(musl)
  
  * Windows build uses a statically linked C runtime to prevent runtime errors
  * musl uses the rustls feature to be as compatible as possible
  * *nix binaries are stripped of debug symbols to save filesize

* binaries are published to the workflow so contributors/testers can download them directly

* When on a tag, creates a release (if necessary) and uploads the binaries there

Mac support should be trivial in terms of this workflow, but it fails to compile due to some std::os::linux imports.

Test run (commit): https://github.com/MCOfficer/bita/actions/runs/2150942533 Test run (release): https://github.com/MCOfficer/bita/actions/runs/2150994973 Test release: https://github.com/MCOfficer/bita/releases/tag/binary-test

Windows binary was tested on my machine; Linux binary in my WSL; musl binary in a clean alpine container.

Looks great and well done with adding the different targets! 🌟

A couple of thoughts... Do you think it would it make sense to add version (from tag for release-artifacts, like bita-v0.9.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) and possibly short git-revision or branch name to workflow artifact file names?
Might make sense to archive+compress artifacts too, to simplify future releases with multiple binaries/files per target (shell completion files, change log or whatever it might be).

Do you think it would it make sense to add version (from tag for release-artifacts, like bita-v0.9.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) and possibly short git-revision or branch name to workflow artifact file names?

I'm fairly indifferent about it. I guess it makes sense and it's a simple thing to change, so if you want we can do that.

Might make sense to archive+compress artifacts too, to simplify future releases with multiple binaries/files per target (shell completion files, change log or whatever it might be).

Also helps with preserving binary flags. The big downside is that it fractures the workflow since you have to use tar on linux and zip on windows. Personally I'd hold off on that until it's needed.

Do you think it would it make sense to add version (from tag for release-artifacts, like bita-v0.9.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) and possibly short git-revision or branch name to workflow artifact file names?

I'm fairly indifferent about it. I guess it makes sense and it's a simple thing to change, so if you want we can do that.

At least for releases I think it would look good. So if you don't mind then please do.

Also helps with preserving binary flags. The big downside is that it fractures the workflow since you have to use tar on linux and zip on windows. Personally I'd hold off on that until it's needed.

Maybe could use zip for all but not sure it preserves file permissions. So fair enough, lets not create archives for now.

Could you also squash your commits into a single, descriptive commit?

Thanks!

Much appreciated @MCOfficer , thank you!