> 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.
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
> 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.
Maybe they don't feel like sharing their work with the AI bot scrapers until the work is complete.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Maybe mental health issues? We aren't entitled to indefinite maintenance of free software