Discofork
Repository brief

psf/requests

Read the upstream summary on the left, browse the cached forks below it, and load each fork comparison into the right-hand panel.

Cached analysis
cached 2026-03-30T11:51:46.199Z
3mo ago

psf/requests

psf/requests is a widely used, production-stable Python HTTP client library. It is active, archived=false, and has very large adoption signals: 53,849 stars, 9,810 forks, and recent commits on 2026-03-30. The repository is maintained as a standard Python package with docs, tests, and release/build metadata in place.

GitHub
Loading tags...
Stars53,849
Forks9,810
Default branchmain
Last pushed2026-03-30T04:18:11Z
Recommended shortcuts

Jump straight into Discofork's strongest cached fork picks, or open a compare view in one click.

Forks

Choose a fork to inspect

10 of 10 fork briefs
Selected

Choose this fork if you need modern protocols or realtime transport features and can tolerate divergence from upstream Requests. Stick with upstream if you mainly want the stable, conservative HTTP/1.1 library with maximum compatibility and lowest maintenance risk.

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.