We seemed to be using the names "film strip" and "filmstrip" (and,
consequently, their source code-conscious forms such as film-strip,
FilmStrip, etc.) In order to comply with our coding style which requires
a consistent one name for a given abstraction, choose one name and
rename the uses of the other name.

Wikipedia has a definition of a "filmstrip", I couldn't find a "film
strip". I guess our abstraction can be seen as what's described there.
When I google "film strip", I get results about "filmstrip" at the top.
That's why I chose "filmstrip".

Certain uses of "film strip" such as interfaceConfig.filmStripOnly and
in the external API I left untouched in an attempt to preserve
compatibility.

I wasn't sure whether CSS was tangled in compatibility so I made a
choice and renamed there was well.

Until we make a decision on access modifier hints and adopt a respective
coding style, consistency is king.

Until we make a decision on access modifier hints and adopt a respective
coding style, consistency is king.

Until we make a decision on access modifier hints and adopt a respective
coding style, consistency is king.

As an intermediate step on the path to merging jitsi-meet and
jitsi-meet-react, import the whole source code of jitsi-meet-react as it
stands at
2f23d98424
i.e. the lastest master at the time of this import. No modifications are
applied to the imported source code in order to preserve a complete
snapshot of it in the repository of jitsi-meet and, thus, facilitate
comparison later on. Consequently, the source code of jitsi-meet and/or
jitsi-meet-react may not work. For example, jitsi-meet's jshint may be
unable to parse jitsi-meet-react's source code.