> > Could we call this "python3" instead, or provide some other way to > > communicate this to the user? > > Sounds like a good idea. Also would this be _the_ sole http server > implementation Python3 users would choose, or is it just a possible > one? What I am trying to get at is that we might need to be even > more specific than just "python 3", but may need to convey that this > is for "http.server using python 3". I dunno. This is the built in http server that Python comes with (like Ruby users have builtin webrick server). While it is possible to install something else, I don't think many casual git-instaweb users would do it. I haven't looked in depth into it but I'm pretty sure that by simply changing the imports I could make this code also work in python2. Upstream python2 support ends in ~11 months and would Red Hat/CentOS 7 users using new git releases really care about "git instaweb -d python" not working on installations without Python 3? In the end I would like to keep the name just "python" to signal that it only needs standard Python installation and nothing else.
