alexandros.frantzis at canonical.com
Tue Nov 5 10:34:20 UTC 2013
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".
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.
More information about the Mir-devel