[General Battuta]

Pursuant to the following user complaint:

"I figured out what was wrong, was running the wrong .exe in my freespace folder.  Not sure why there are two executable freespace open files named practically the same thing that got installed, but oh well.  One is fs2_open_3_6_12r_INF and the other is fs2_open_3_6_12d_INF, is that normal?"

I would like to open discussion for a new build naming scheme that makes it more clear to users which build they should be using to play.

[Shivan Hunter]

renaming them to "debug" and "release" instead of just "d" and "r" should work imo. one less element of confusion when it's clear just what the mystical "debug build" is.

[Jeff Vader]

"r" and "release" might also be confusing to the most dimwitted of users. I'd opt for a format like "fs2_open_3_6_12.exe" and "fs2_open_3_6_12_DEBUG.exe". With "INF"s and "SSE"s somewhere in the middle.

[Dragon]

Since Inferno is now a standard, I suggest dropping "INF".

[karajorma]

I'd agree with dropping INF and simply having standard and Non_INF builds. Same with SSE2. So you'd have

fs2_open_3_6_12.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_DEBUG.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_SSE1.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_NO-SSE.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_NON-INF.exe

etc.

Simple, to the point and it makes clear that the builds with extra words are in some way special rather than having the standard builds looking practically the same as all the other special builds you might need to use.

It also makes it blindingly obvious what is meant when you are told to use a debug build.

[The E]

Actually, didn't we sort of agree to drop non-Inf builds completely?

[mjn.mixael]

I'd agree with dropping INF and simply having standard and Non_INF builds. Same with SSE2. So you'd have

fs2_open_3_6_12.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_DEBUG.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_SSE1.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_NO-SSE.exe
fs2_open_3_6_12_NON-INF.exe

etc.

Simple, to the point and it makes clear that the builds with extra words are in some way special rather than having the standard builds looking practically the same as all the other special builds you might need to use.

It also makes it blindingly obvious what is meant when you are told to use a debug build.

This one seems pretty clear to me and gets my vote.

[General Battuta]

I like Kara's scheme (with the obvious addition that we won't need NON-INF as all builds will be INF). But I wonder if the standard build deserves a STANDARD or PLAY tag.

[Goober5000]

Kara's scheme is the way it used to be, in fact.  I think it started getting abbreviated to just "d" and "r" because people got tired of typing.

[Luis Dias]

I vote for kara's solution too.

[Iss Mneur]

Kara's scheme is the way it used to be, in fact.  I think it started getting abbreviated to just "d" and "r" because people got tired of typing.

Which probably is not a big deal (now anyway) because the build system does all of the renaming for us.

I think Kara's solution is best, and think the build that we want everyone to use should have the shortest, plainest name (which it would have before the INF and the SSE stuff was tacked on because they were experimental).

[chief1983]

It also changed because different Visual Studio projects had different default naming schemes.

[JGZinv]

Not that I have a say in anything, buy as an outside opinion I agree with kara's solution as well.

I know what the d and r is for, but I'll often hit the one I don't want of the two simply because I'm
clicking right along and they look so similar. Expanding it out would help significantly with the minor irritation.