Component clarification

Thomas Voß thomas.voss at canonical.com
Tue Nov 5 10:36:34 UTC 2013


On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Alexandros Frantzis
<alexandros.frantzis at 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 at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel



More information about the Mir-devel mailing list