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 httpx2 project is essentially a fork that promises not to break the existing API, which makes it a more stable dependency to build against.
I wrote a pretty long comment about my concerns for the breaking 1.0 version last year - https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3344#discussionc... - in that comment I recommended the HTTPX project release their 1.0 as a package called httpx2 instead, but a year later we now have an httpx2 (released by a different maintainer) that keeps the old API.
Aurornis
> 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
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.
> 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
Maybe they don't feel like sharing their work with the AI bot scrapers until the work is complete.
Aurornis
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
> 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
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
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.
giov4
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
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
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
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.
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
> 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
>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
> 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.
trallnag
Maybe mental health issues? We aren't entitled to indefinite maintenance of free software
giov4
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)
superze
The issue with httpx is that it has an obnoxious and toxic maintainer.
That's easily the strangest self-destruction I've ever seen. "Skewed gender representation"? Not sure how that matters or what the intended effect of salting the earth here was.
mock-possum
I feel like that hardly answers anything
[deleted]
Comment removed.
isgb
It’s a complex topic that’s usually treated with a lot of bias and very little nuance. Most mental health issues tend to be treated as something to be removed whereas in the case of gender dysphoria, the empirically proven treatment is (of course treated case-by-case) to transition. Similarly, dysphoria (when being trans, most commonly) is often treated as some form of perversion or threat. It’s complicated.
beanjuiceII
was probably chewing bubble gum on the wrong sidewalk
jatora
this made me laugh even though i dont think i even get it. can you explain this please lol
beanjuiceII
people think other people are 'toxic' for the silliest of things most times; and this person is saying some maintainer is toxic to put it out there but provides no information as to why.. so i figured my context is as good as theirs
nozzlegear
> people think other people are 'toxic' for the silliest of things most times
We started this fork because there was no activity on HTTPX, a very popular Python HTTP library.
A few weeks later, Pydantic started their own fork called HTTPX2. We decided to embrace this and support HTTPX2. We're upstreaming our fixes to HTTPX2 and in our opinion it should be the "blessed" fork. Pydantic can make this more successful than we ever can.
It is too bad because httpxyz is absolutely the better name.
simonw
httpx2 is sponsored by Pydantic and has involvement from the new maintainer of Starlette, so it's off to a very strong start.
fnord123
Kludex is a really good dev
glitch253
He's a freaking GOD
tonyhart7
"I recommended the HTTPX project release their 1.0 as a package called httpx2 instead, but a year later we now have an httpx2 (released by a different maintainer) that keeps the old API"
wtf is going on
ClikeX
Open Source disputes.
krzyk
A bit strange considering "coding is solved".
But seriously, migrating between different libs should be ~free for both Anthropic and OpenAI.
simonw
A migration document like this one is how you get that ~free upgrade - it's something you can point an agent at.
rolymath
The Python community loves confusing versioning.
I mean, obviously Python 2.7 is newer than Python 3.1
I remember swearing I would never migrate to python3 but here we are, I migrated without even feeling it or realizing when (But I do remember django played a big role).
chme
That isn't confusing at all, if you know how maintained stable releases work.
Happens with the Linux kernel as well.
hk__2
There are a lot of large projects where X.1 is newer than Y.0. You release a new major version for breaking changes, but you backport security changes to previous major releases as well.
Minors and hotfixes allow you to release a new version for an older release (like if you released 3.7 but you found a bug present in 3.4, you can release 3.4.1 which would be newer than 3.7), making it possible to have multiple supported versions at the same time.
yard2010
Tangibly related, did you know that odd versions of node don't get LTS, I found it odd at first
paulddraper
That’s probably the worst example you could have chosen.
You shouldn’t assume anything about relative date of 2.7 and 3.1.
Same! Recently ported some code from httpx -> niquests and the experience has been good, although admittedly the governance of the project seems a little unclear.
I (ok, Qwen 3.7 27B) wrote some benchmarking code to compare throughput, and niquests seems to be substantially more performant for traffic that doesn't need to traverse the public web, e.g. intra cluster service to service communication:
Metric httpx httpx2 niquests
-------------------------------------------------------
mean 17.8ms 4.6ms 3.3ms
min 3.2ms 1.5ms 1.2ms
max 632.4ms 11.1ms 10.8ms
p50 15.9ms 4.2ms 3.0ms
p95 32.4ms 7.4ms 5.6ms
p99 52.1ms 8.5ms 8.4ms
total 1.15s 315.5ms 239.7ms
throughput 869.2 req/s 3170.0 req/s 4171.1 req/s
Winner: niquests (4.8x faster by wall clock)
awoimbee
I opened an issue some time ago about them monkey patching urllib3, it was fixed than but I now see the issue has been outright deleted.
Oh and now I see there is a URLLIB3_NO_OVERRIDE thing... I would not recommend this project.
> I've closed off access to issues and discussions.
> 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.
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 behaviour? I see it only damaging towards the person, the project and the community.
dgellow
That’s fair, good for the maintainer to consider his personal values with regards to projects he wants to spend his time on
i574n
A network error occurred. Please check your connection and try again. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
yeah nice engineering clowns
tosh
nb: operating system TLS trust store is used now (instead of certifi)
zx8080
This could be a breaking change (for some corporate network environments).
skullone
Ugh. certifi the most annoying thing ever. It snuck into numerous python dependencies, never made anything better, and confuses all the junior devs when their venvs/containers etc can't access internal CA signed resources. Probably have explained what to do over 9,000 times. And for what? "To provide updated root CAs". Meh. I don't need daily CA trust store updates. If your CA roots are that new, I want nothing to do with it. Cert issuers (cough sectigo and their amateur hour CA root rotation recently, not even Mozilla had it).
we have recently switched from httpx for the same reason but instead went with the Rust-based pyqwest (runs on Hyper) it has also a drop-in httpx-compatible transport so migration was easy and also it supports http2 trailers
because its over QUIC, which is different enough to be a pain.
Not that there is anything wrong with QUIC, at least its built by someone who knows what they are doing, unlike HTTP2
tankenmate
that's not really much of an argument, almost all reasonable libraries wrap the functionality.and if a provider doesn't want to support http3 then the library will fallback, and then the laggards should pay the slow tax.
KaiserPro
No as in the infra between you and the end user is less developed.
Nobody is going to get fired for using http1.1
if you move to http3 and a bunch of clients cant use your site, then you're gonna get yelled at.
TZubiri
Why would you assume that we have to move from techX to techX+1? If I release http4 would you assume that you have to migrate to http4 at some point?
ironqcold
Oh, well... It was bound to happen eventually. I suppose there must be some advantages to such a solution.
KaiserPro
Why would you want to use HTTPX2 over say requests?
JimDabell
Requests has been dead for over a decade. It doesn’t support HTTP/2, it doesn’t support HTTP/3, it doesn’t support async, and they ignore security vulnerabilities for months.
Nobody should use requests. If you are still using it, the quickest way to get off it is to switch to niquests, which is actively developed, supports all the things I mentioned above, and API-compatible with requests - you can just do `import niquests as requests` for an instant upgrade.
Async. And it comes with WSGI and ASGI transport adapters [1], which are amazing for testing/debugging with the client and server in a single process. And I personally find the httpx API is much cleaner and more composable, but ymmv.
Since it clearly intends to satisfy the async use case, I wish you'd've phrased this as "over aiohttp".
imp0cat
You probably want to use pretty much anything over requests for performance reasons.
oersted
async
delduca
Why this is in the frontpage?
bilalq
I'd second this question. And I really mean that in a sincere way. Why is the choice of a random HTTP library in an SDK such an engaging topic of discussion here? Is there some context I'm missing?
When I first read the title, I assumed this was some fancy new protocol that extends HTTP or something. But it's just about an SDK switching one transitive dependency with a fork? And arguably one that should just have its functionality be part of stdlib?
shay_ker
i assume this is largely about the cybersecurity blitz, to ensure hot-path code is secure?
Seems like the point is that the httpx maintainer is a bad maintainer.
zanie
That project looks owned by https://github.com/karpetrosyan who has contributed to httpx but is not the owner / maintainer in question
ZeroCool2u
The requests packages fundamental API is good enough and is now maintained by the PSF. I don't understand why OpenAI and Anthropic don't just throw some $$$ to the PSF for focused improvements and expansion of it.
awildfivreld
The maintainers of requests have made it pretty clear that they consider that package feature complete, and have not showed interest in adding native async support to the core.
TZubiri
requests is great and all, but you can just use sockets and send raw http strings. Don't treat it like some impenetrable huge OS project.
Unless OpenAI deprecates the HTTP endpoint, you can pretty much ignore the whole SDK packages.
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 httpx2 project is essentially a fork that promises not to break the existing API, which makes it a more stable dependency to build against.
I wrote a pretty long comment about my concerns for the breaking 1.0 version last year - https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3344#discussionc... - in that comment I recommended the HTTPX project release their 1.0 as a package called httpx2 instead, but a year later we now have an httpx2 (released by a different maintainer) that keeps the old API.
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.
Unfortunately that 1.0 work is happening in a private repository.
https://pypi.org/project/httpx/#history
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.
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 have no idea what that means other this person might not be the easier to work with, or get along with.
Some people get spam. Some people get spam about vulnerabilities that don't exist. And some people get threats.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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)
They also effectively killed off MkDocs: https://github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs/discussions/3677
Do they?
We started this fork because there was no activity on HTTPX, a very popular Python HTTP library.
A few weeks later, Pydantic started their own fork called HTTPX2. We decided to embrace this and support HTTPX2. We're upstreaming our fixes to HTTPX2 and in our opinion it should be the "blessed" fork. Pydantic can make this more successful than we ever can.
See also https://tildeweb.nl/~michiel/httpx2.html
Thanks for all your support!
Sander & Michiel
wtf is going on
But seriously, migrating between different libs should be ~free for both Anthropic and OpenAI.
I mean, obviously Python 2.7 is newer than Python 3.1
I remember swearing I would never migrate to python3 but here we are, I migrated without even feeling it or realizing when (But I do remember django played a big role).
Happens with the Linux kernel as well.
Minors and hotfixes allow you to release a new version for an older release (like if you released 3.7 but you found a bug present in 3.4, you can release 3.4.1 which would be newer than 3.7), making it possible to have multiple supported versions at the same time.
You shouldn’t assume anything about relative date of 2.7 and 3.1.
I (ok, Qwen 3.7 27B) wrote some benchmarking code to compare throughput, and niquests seems to be substantially more performant for traffic that doesn't need to traverse the public web, e.g. intra cluster service to service communication:
https://gist.github.com/jtbaker/61061d27949ef48ac31e85ff28c2...
uv run scripts/bench_http.py --count 1000 Benchmarking 1000 requests to http://localhost:8000/health (concurrency=16, timeout=30.0s) Date: 2026-08-28T10:18:34.480111
Running httpx... Running httpx2... Running niquests...
Metric httpx httpx2 niquests ------------------------------------------------------- mean 17.8ms 4.6ms 3.3ms min 3.2ms 1.5ms 1.2ms max 632.4ms 11.1ms 10.8ms p50 15.9ms 4.2ms 3.0ms p95 32.4ms 7.4ms 5.6ms p99 52.1ms 8.5ms 8.4ms total 1.15s 315.5ms 239.7ms throughput 869.2 req/s 3170.0 req/s 4171.1 req/s
Winner: niquests (4.8x faster by wall clock)
SDK is just a wrapper around POST https://api.openai.com/v1/responses
Just REST + JSON.
streaming (sse parsing) + tool calling + structured outputs + pagination are easy to do.
But what are the upsides of this change?
> I've closed off access to issues and discussions.
> 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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1rl5kuq/anyone_know...
And again, both genders can write good/bad software just the same.
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 behaviour? I see it only damaging towards the person, the project and the community.
yeah nice engineering clowns
https://pyqwest.dev
But yes, it doesn't support HTTP3. Here's the related issue: https://github.com/pydantic/httpx2/issues/92
Not that there is anything wrong with QUIC, at least its built by someone who knows what they are doing, unlike HTTP2
Nobody is going to get fired for using http1.1
if you move to http3 and a bunch of clients cant use your site, then you're gonna get yelled at.
Nobody should use requests. If you are still using it, the quickest way to get off it is to switch to niquests, which is actively developed, supports all the things I mentioned above, and API-compatible with requests - you can just do `import niquests as requests` for an instant upgrade.
https://niquests.readthedocs.io/
thanks!
[1] https://www.python-httpx.org/advanced/transports/#wsgi-trans...
When I first read the title, I assumed this was some fancy new protocol that extends HTTP or something. But it's just about an SDK switching one transitive dependency with a fork? And arguably one that should just have its functionality be part of stdlib?
Unless OpenAI deprecates the HTTP endpoint, you can pretty much ignore the whole SDK packages.