Rename transit module to RT

[pcubillos]

Change the name of the transit folder and executable to RT to avoid confusion with the package's name.

[AndrewSDFoster]

This is an issue with BART not transit. This issue should probably be closed, and a similar one opened on the BART repository.

[aj-foster]

@AndrewSDFoster I think renaming the transit directory in this repo is a good idea, so that it is clear pu, pylineread, and RT are all parts of a package called transit.

[AndrewSDFoster]

Ok, I see what you're saying, but I disagree.

This package and repo and code are called "transit". By keeping the
directory in here also named "transit", it makes it clearer that that
directory is where the final executable and the bulk of the relevant code
will be located.

Further, BART can ideally be extended with ANY radiative transfer code, so
I feel that it makes more sense to call the directory in BART "RT", as that
is the directory where the radiative transfer code of the user's choice
will go. Once inside, you see the one that we use, transit, as well as some
other code that it depends on (pylineread, the pu library, etc).

Also, what if in the future someone is able to make a radiative transfer
code that gets data not during a transit/eclipse? In that case I feel that
it makes more sense to keep this particular repo/code called "transit" and
the module for it within BART kept generic and called "RT". Similarly,
perhaps the module directory where TEA is kept should be renamed to
"chemistry" or something similarly generic, etc.

Just my take, does that make sense? Is there any particular reason to do it
the other way around?

-asdf-
On Jun 10, 2015 11:33 PM, "AJ Foster" [email protected] wrote:

@AndrewSDFoster https://github.com/AndrewSDFoster I think renaming the
transit directory in this repo is a good idea, so that it is clear pu,
pylineread, and RT are all parts of a package called transit.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1 (comment).

[pcubillos]

At the moment I posted this issue the idea was in fact to rename the module's and executable's name, but keeping the package's name as Transit. Our intention is to make it easier to the user to distinguish between the Package's and the module's name.

Your point is valid Andrew, as I think there is no right or wrong solution here, it's just a choice. However, we do have constraints. We are honoring our agreement with the original developer of the Transit code (P. Rojo), and thus the package's and the pu module's names have to stand.

Besides that, discussing the BART sub-modules' names are beyond the scope of this particular issue here, we better discuss it offline or in its own issue.

Thanks for the input.