> 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.

▲

simonw a day ago | parent | next [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

jgalt212 a day ago | parent [-]

Maybe they don't feel like sharing their work with the AI bot scrapers until the work is complete.

▲

Aurornis a day ago | parent | next [-]

For the users of the project, the reasons don’t matter. They’re free to do as they want for any reason they choose.

Users of the project can (and have been) moving to forks that are operated as open, community projects in the continued spirit of the project’s original intention.

For what it’s worth, the maintainer has stated their reasons and they are not related to AI or scraper bots.

▲

jgalt212 a day ago | parent [-]

> I don't want to continue allowing an online environment with such an absurdly skewed gender representation. I find it intensely unwelcoming, and it's not reflective of the type of working environments I value.

I have no idea what that means other this person might not be the easier to work with, or get along with.

	▲	shakna 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably means the attacks on them, mentioning gender, were increasing. Some people get spam. Some people get spam about vulnerabilities that don't exist. And some people get threats.

▲

tredre3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is a legitimate feeling, but to spite the trillion dollars company he also hurts thousands of regular developers.

He doesn't owe those developers anything, of course, but likewise they do not owe him loyalty and thus since an open fork exists, his project will die.

Killing the project is also his right, but people also have a right to be upset by his passive aggressive behavior. Just announce that you're shutting down the project and move on, don't waste our time.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

giov4 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

mmerickel a day ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

giov4 15 hours ago | parent [-]

they owe us the responsibility of having created, released and maintained something that they created and they are responsible for.

If you cannot handle or take this responsibility towards the community you cannot do opensource. just do a company and try to profit, but don't interfere with FOSS and impact FOSS in general if you cannot handle it.

	▲	duskdozer 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From the software license: >THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/LICENSE.md The contributors provided the source of the project under these terms, which are stated up front. Any responsibility to you beyond this is imagined.

▲

prmoustache 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

giov4 15 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

Yes it is, this was a major component.

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

By moderators that are not existing but should actually moderate human mental issues affecting FOSS

>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.

Nope, is just that a useful open source project for me has always public report and that's the basis to start collaborating.

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

That's normal in open source, should be taken into account and managed like everybody else does in open source projects. Just go look at sftpgo, as an example.

>Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so.

Yes clearly, the community easily realizes this behavior and now I see a private path of commits in private reps of somebody working alone.

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

Nope, forked, hated and closed are not fine for an open source project.

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

All of it, anybody using the open source, should be free to use, modify and collaborate on a project independently from the mental issues of the one that started it. closing repos just goes against all of this and should be a shame.

	▲	prmoustache 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Nope, is just that a useful open source project for me has always public report and that's the basis to start collaborating. > All of it, anybody using the open source, should be free to use, modify and collaborate on a project independently from the mental issues of the one that started it. closing repos just goes against all of this and should be a shame. You are making a false assumption that open source software is about the author surrendering is rights and forced collaboration. It is not. Open source software is about the use of a license that grants the end user rights to study, modify and publish modifications (basically giving rights to fork) under the same or compatible license, often with mandory author attribution. There is nothing in these licenses about original author duties on maintaining a project open to collaboration, it is only about user rights.

▲

17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

trallnag a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe mental health issues? We aren't entitled to indefinite maintenance of free software

	▲	giov4 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yes I believe we are, and such indefinite maintenance is the result of FOSS and open repos and open collaboration that can re-iterate and keep a strong and decent level of maintenance. maintainers are very important to me because i know the effort behind and the backbone of passion that holds them alive, and I would do the same, I would do it for passion and ask nothing back, especially topics like Credits and Copyrights (go check the related history, a shame)