← Back to context

Comment by Aurornis

18 hours ago

> The problem with httpx as a dependency is that it's currently working towards a 1.0 release which will be full of breaking changes.

The httpx maintainer closed off access to issues and discussions on the repo, has been ignoring PRs, and hasn’t updated it in a half a year.

I don’t think there is any reason to consider httpx as a viable project any more. The Pydantic httpx fork has taken its place.

13 comments

Aurornis

Reply
simonw  18 hours ago

HTTPX stable hasn't had a release since December 2024, but there have been two dev releases of the 1.0 branch this month (after a gap since September 2025.)

Unfortunately that 1.0 work is happening in a private repository.

https://pypi.org/project/httpx/#history

  • Aurornis  18 hours ago

    > Unfortunately that 1.0 work is happening in a private repository.

    That’s even more reason to consider it non-viable.

    There is no reason to encourage or support this type of behavior in a project. It is their right to do with it as they please, but I’m not interested in a project that functions like this. The forks are continuing to operate like true community projects.

giov4  14 hours ago

unbelievable, how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much?

I mean really, closing repos? excluding maintainers? committing only on private repos?

This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity to avoid exactly this situation of becoming a liability.

I've never seen a open source project page without a github link or a git clone ref like this https://www.encode.io/hx/ it is so ridiculous, wasn't that stuff on github? and isn't it anyway there due to over 1k forks?

what's the advantage of having this behavior? I see it only damaging towards the person, the project and the community.

  • prmoustache  2 hours ago

    > how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much?

    FOSS is not affected negatively.

    First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons.

    Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible.

    > This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity

    Banned by who and where?

    > I've never seen a open source project page without a github link or a git clone ref

    Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git.

    > what's the advantage of having this behavior?

    Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example.

    > I see it only damaging towards the person

    Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so.

    > the project

    The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts.

    > and the community.

    Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so.

  • mmerickel  11 hours ago

    This level of entitlement is the reason that FOSS has a maintenance / support epidemic. Maintainers don't owe you anything. They put the work in, not you.