On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:36:34AM +0100, Thomas Voß wrote: > 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.
We are heavily using some Mesa components/interfaces, like GBM, that are not part of DRI, though. Thanks, Alexandros -- Mir-devel mailing list Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
