Code review comment for lp:~brandontschaefer/mir/client-api-apply-remove-display-config

> Specifically, according to your own comments we need to rename display_config_
> to display_configuration, and here you are proposing the opposite of that,
> actually making the problem worse.
>
> If you believe that MirDisplayConfig and _display_config is the way forward
> then you should retract your review of:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/mir/mir-display-config-
> header/+merge/311246
>
> If not then you should change "config" to "configuration" here. I know we're
> in limbo right now with the old API hanging around, but we should reject
> changes like this that make the problem worse, if indeed the team believes
> that the word "config" is the problem.
>
> Brandon Schaefer (brandontschaefer) wrote on 2016-12-10:
> I would like to think we were all doing our jobs. Im still in favour of
> MirDisplayConfiguration. 6 characters isnt *to* many extra characters to type.
> Yes it break ABI, yes it'll be a bit more work. We are already planning on
> breaking the ABI. I dont see a reason we should avoid this when a majority of
> us agreed on a name already.

Yes and I still agree with it. I was leaving it how it currently is, *_display_config == new API and
*_display_configuration == old API. With the idea that once we get these functions in we then can deprecate the old set of functions then get a branch to rename them all to *_display_configuration.

Though I could still just move to display_configuration vs waiting, figured it would be more uniformed to have a branch that renames everything.