It isn't - just hand it off.

If you don't like the laws, are you a hypocrite for not starting your own country?

Arguments in this thread seem to miss a discrepancy:

    "We don't want to support py2, and so why should we? Our time isn't free and we do what we want!"

    "We know you don't want to migrate your py2 code, but you have to."

Forks aren't easy, especially when you get no support from the "official" python-2 maintainers. At the very least, a fork would not own the name.

Here's a question - why isn't python-3 a fork of python? Answer: because forks are hard, and the devs wanted to keep all the momentum/resources of python-2.

The fork comment is not meant to be a realistic suggestion, it just points out that there is work needed to maintain compatibility. The thing is, you can't both complain about the time it takes to migrate your project _and_ expect maintainers to spend an incommensurate amount of time maintaining suff for you, free of charge.

I understand that some people and companies are now caught between a rock and a hard place right now. But honestly, that rock has been coming for 12 years now, and the alternative is to put other people in that situation.

Sure, but the assumption is py3 devs do the work in order to dismiss the idea and suggest people are entitled.

py3 devs don't need to do the work, they just need to hand it off.

> The thing is, you can't both..

Yes you can, if "maintaining" is handing it off, as opposed to the straw man of forcing py3 devs to do it. Why do the gatekeepers only allow for themselves to do the work?

> that rock has been coming for 12 years

notice is not consent.

> the alternative is to put other people in that situation

12 years is enough time to hand off to people who are happy to maintain py2. But there was no choice given.