Rename package to asdf

[olebole]

This pull request solves (partially) #186 in the way that the library is renamed from pyasdf to asdf.
I will apply this patch to the Debian version of asdf so that the version 1.0.1-1 there will have this name.

Please indicate whether this is OK for you or not. It will be hard to change the name once the package is there, but I want to advertize the format a bit, and enable the users to play with it.

[nden]

👍

[embray]

Wow, thanks @olebole ! This should mostly resolve the issue, other than swapping RTD accounts.

There were a few errors in the docs build--I don't know if those errors were occurring before or not, but I do see some remaining references to "pyasdf" that might have been missed.

We should also rename this repository on GitHub just to be clear.

[olebole]

@embray I found the missing piece for the rename; it was the directory docs/pyasdf.
For the error in the docs, I have no idea at all. They appear on the lines like

.. asdf:: example.asdf

which were not renamed by the first commits of this PR. They lead to

/home/travis/build/spacetelescope/pyasdf/docs/index.rst:52: WARNING: Could not parse literal_block as "yaml". highlighting skipped.

I first thought of some name conflict and renamed the directive to asdfdata; this owever does not help. I could imagine that this happens as well in the original branch (maybe depending on the sphinx release).
Could I request some help here? I am not familar with sphinx extensions.

[embray]

It's possible the sphinx extension broke somewhere along the line or isn't being installed properly. I have a feeling those errors are not due to your changes but I'm not sure (the others were, but that was a simple fix).

[embray]

This looks to be related: sphinx-doc/sphinx#2264

@olebole for the "revert" what I really meant was a rebase / squash--no need for an actual revert commit.

[embray]

I think after this we can move on--it seems to issue with yaml highlighting is not related to your changes. Thanks again!

[olebole]

OK, I did a squash (hopefully correctly).

[olebole]

@embray Could I ask to merge this PR and create a new version then? Otherwise, I would need to create a Debian package that differs quite significantly from the official upstream package.

[nden]

Unless there's an objection I will merge this PR later today.

[olebole]

Thank you very much! Would you mind to also create a new release and upload to pypi?

[nden]

I tagged a new version as 1.0.2. Will upload it as soon as I get permissions on pypi.

[olebole]

Now there is a 1.0.2 version registered on pypi, but no files associated with it.

[embray]

I think we should be calling this "1.1.0" at the very least considering it completely changed the name of the package :)

[embray]

We should also change the name of this GitHub repository to further reduce confusion.

[embray]

Similarly I think the dropping of Python 2.6 should be a 1.x release, not a patch release. Though it's less important for asdf since it doesn't have a wide user base yet.

But yeah, patch releases should only be to fix bugs--it shouldn't include major interface changes.

[nden]

pypi refused to upload the files and we are still trying to sort out the permissions.
I'll send a note when the files are there, will probably need to tag a new version, so 1.1 may come out as @embray recommends. Changing the name of the repository requires even more coordination with other groups. It will happen eventually, just not right now.
@embray Do you have permissions for the RTD account and can you assist in switching the accounts?