On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Alexandros Frantzis <alexandros.frant...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:41:29AM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote: >> Yeah, very good point about "gbm". That confused me when I joined to >> project too. It should be called "dri", I think. > > What about just "mesa"? I think "mesa" is more recognizable, and > adequately descriptive of the backend's target driver model and APIs. > I don't think Mesa has or will have significant competing non-dri > backends. Having said that, I am fine with either "dri" or "mesa". >
I would rather prefer dri as opposed to mesa. Although your argument is technically correct, there is the difference of interface name (dri) and implementation (mesa) and I tend to favor the interface name perspective. > Whatever the final choice, I think this is something we are better off > doing early in the cycle (i.e. soon), since it's when we have a window > for non-feature oriented work. > +1. Cheers, Thomas > Thanks, > Alexandros > > -- > Mir-devel mailing list > Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel -- Mir-devel mailing list Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
