Update: Bump some dependencies

[erikkemperman]

I was about to go through all the gulpjs repos with a minor line-ending tweak in response to gulpjs/vinyl-fs#269, when I figured I might as well do some other dreary menial work whilst traversing the repos anyway. So here are a bunch of more or less trivial dependency bumps.

Feel free to squash these commits if you like, but thought I'd submit them separately so you could cherry-pick if you wanted.

Note especially the dependencies whose recent releases won't work with Node 0.10/0.12:

• chalk, last usable version is 1.1.3
• wreck, last usable version is 6.3.0
• yargs, last usable version is 7.1.0
• coveralls, last usable version is 2.11.15 (note, coveralls 2.11.16 does not work due to transitive dependency on request 2.77.0)
• fs-extra, last usable version is 2.0.0 (note, 2.1.0 does not work due to const keywords)
• eslint, last usable version is 2.* but I did not bump it here, pending these being resolved:
  Update for eslint@>2.x eslint-config-gulp#13
  Missing critical rules eslint-config-gulp#8

Also, is github-changes actually being used? I don't see it in other repos (the ones I checked so far, anyway) and it's pulling in a bunch of ancient modules (like lodash 2).

[phated]

@erikkemperman I appreciate you doing this (and I'll use it as a guide); however, I am currently in the process of a "dependency review" of the entire gulp4 tree and will be removing/swapping/updating a ton in this repo.

[erikkemperman]

@phated Fair enough, hope this might still be of some help going forward with that review.

[erikkemperman]

@phated I know how you feel about supporting 0.10/12 -- but it does seem to me the larger node world is gradually leaving those behind, and there might come a point where the benefit of supporting them no longer warrants the hassle of finding maintained utilities?

Can't back this up with usage stats, mind you, just throwing it out there :-)

[phated]

Best response to dropping support:

Please stop suggesting it for 4.0 😄 We'll revisit for 5.0

[erikkemperman]

Wasn't suggesting a particular drop zone, just relating increased difficulty keeping dependencies...

The quote is good, but presupposes a sizable crowd still relying on these versions, imho.

Which conversely will largely be a function of the available libraries that support them.

Anyway, fair enough, I'll not mention it for a while ;-P

[erikkemperman]

@phated Looks like this is now redundant / confusing with the recent new issues, guess I should close this.

[phated]

@erikkemperman sorry! This one got buried and I had been wanting to gut a few modules for awhile now. I need to get better at writing down my thoughts in issues.