Updated outdated dependencies

[Abdulwahaab710]

In this PR I have updated the following outdated dependencies:

• http
• rake
• recursive-open-struct
• rubocop
• webmock

[abonas]

hi, @Abdulwahaab710 .
please squash your commits, they have a similar name, and they have the same purpose.
also, travis is failing, please check its error messages. mostly I believe it's due to version bump of rubocop and the fix of this.

[Abdulwahaab710]

Done :)

[simon3z]

@moolitayer can you review? (mostly for new dependencies versions implications)

[cben]

• dev dependencies are safe to bump.
• https://github.com/aetherknight/recursive-open-struct/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md
  1.0.3 adds ruby 2.4 compat, but stops worrying about 2.0, 2.1 which kubeclient still supports. However 2.0, 2.1 still pass tests. I hope they'll bump to at least 1.1.0 when it actually breaks ruby 2.0...
• https://github.com/httprb/http/blob/master/CHANGES.md looks harmless.

[moolitayer]

I hope they'll bump to at least 1.1.0 when it actually breaks ruby 2.0...

I doubt if they will even notice when that happens...

We probably want to enjoy @jrafanie's aetherknight/recursive-open-struct#52 with all the performance work going around, so I would consider dropping support of ruby 2.0 & 2.1 and bumping kubeclient's version. I'm not sure how/if that is problematic to users.

@kirs @grosser @albertrdixon care to comment on dropping ruby 2.0, 2.1 support ?

[grosser]

everything up to 2.1 is unsupported https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2017/04/01/support-of-ruby-2-1-has-ended/ so I'm in favor of getting rid of it ... make the new gem have a require_ruby_version and it should not break for people stuck on older versions ...

[jrafanie]

We probably want to enjoy @jrafanie's aetherknight/recursive-open-struct#52 with all the performance work going around,

@moolitayer I doubt that would help most use cases... I would think you would need an enormous recursive structure to see much difference. I could be wrong though.

I'm all for dropping unsupported rubies in a non-patch release 👍

[grosser]

FYI ROS removal issue #251

…

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Joe Rafaniello ***@***.***> wrote: We probably want to enjoy @jrafanie <https://github.com/jrafanie>'s aetherknight/recursive-open-struct#52 <aetherknight/recursive-open-struct#52> with all the performance work going around, @moolitayer <https://github.com/moolitayer> I doubt that would help most use cases... I would think you would need an enormous recursive structure to see much difference. I could be wrong though. I'm all for dropping unsupported rubies in a non-patch release 👍 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#253 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAsZxI_b-HOc-25TphTO8swWru1ekaEks5sEaa_gaJpZM4N6I5-> .

[kirs]

👍 for dropping anything < 2.1

[simon3z]

@Abdulwahaab710 @grosser @moolitayer @jrafanie we may want to change the .travis.yml as well at some point (now is running against 2.0 and 2.1 as well).

[simon3z]

@Abdulwahaab710 if you squash your 2 commits in 1 I think we're good to merge.

[Abdulwahaab710]

@simon3z I have removed rvm 2.0 and rvm 2.1

[cben]

We forgot to update required_ruby_version in gemspec, it's still 2.0.0 but we now have non-2.0 syntax.