psf/requests

Prefer upstream psf/requests unless you specifically need this old frozen snapshot. The fork adds no visible capability and is materially behind on maintenance, so it is a weak adoption candidate for normal use.

Choose this fork only if SOCKS/Tor proxy support is the primary requirement and you can tolerate a frozen, highly divergent codebase. For most new work, upstream Requests is the safer default.

Prefer upstream Requests unless you specifically need this fork's historical, self-contained experimental codebase. This fork is significantly divergent and stale, so it is a poor default choice for new adopters but may interest users preserving legacy behavior or studying early implementation experiments.

Prefer upstream unless you explicitly need this fork's old customizations. This fork is materially behind and heavily diverged, so it fits adopters who want a frozen, specialized snapshot more than users who want a maintained HTTP library.

Prefer upstream Requests for almost all use cases. This fork only makes sense if you specifically need this exact historical fork identity or the AUTHORS.rst change; otherwise the 375-commit lag makes it a poor adoption target.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork's legacy behavior or packaging history. This fork is materially obsolete for new adopters and better treated as a historical branch than a maintained alternative.

Prefer upstream psf/requests for almost all uses. Choose this fork only if you intentionally need a frozen historical copy and accept missing 100 upstream commits of fixes and maintenance.

Prefer upstream psf/requests for production use. Choose this fork only if you specifically need an old, unmodified snapshot to build on.

Prefer upstream Requests unless you specifically need this fork’s legacy packaging or historical behavior. This fork is too stale and too far behind for most new adopters.