+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1006074 +++

Description of problem:
Rename installation files to be more user-friendly.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
6.0.0.ER2
Came from usability week review

Additional info:
EAP vs. Deployable downloads confusing - which one do you grab if you already have EAP6 vs. do not? Deployable is for installing on top of Tomcat or other app servers, but this isn't clear at a glance. It seems like the one with EAP in the name is an all-in-one solution w/ EAP included given our history of installer solutions.

Current name --> Suggested name:
jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable.zip --> jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable_otherappservers.zip

jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-eap6.zip --> jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable-eap6.1.zip

— Additional comment from JBoss Product and Program Management on 2013-09-09 19:50:10 EDT —

Since this issue was entered in Red Hat Bugzilla, the release flag has been
set to ? to ensure that it is properly evaluated for this release.

— Additional comment from Ryan Zhang on 2013-09-29 01:47:40 EDT —

This can be done before beta.
Could we update the pm_ack flag to '+' ?

— Additional comment from Ryan Zhang on 2013-09-30 03:10:50 EDT —

I suggest to update
"jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable_otherappservers.zip" to
"jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable-otherserver.zip"
which I think is also user friendly and a bit short.

— Additional comment from Prakash Aradhya on 2013-09-30 11:38:32 EDT —

Here is my suggestion.

Current name --> Suggested name:
jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-eap6.zip --> jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable-eap6.x.zip

The above bundle is for EAP 6.x only (EAP 6.1 now and 6.1.1 or 6.1.2 etc at later point)

jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable.zip --> jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-2-deployable_generic.zip

This is usable for any containers, including EAP 6.1. For EAP 6.1 it is a fat installation which includes all the dependent libraries.
But, the expectation is people can use this to deploy on Tomcat, FSW, WAS etc.

— Additional comment from Rajesh Rajasekaran on 2013-09-30 12:00:45 EDT —

Sounds good to me.
One suggestion. Let's consistently use '-' instead of '_' in the file names.

— Additional comment from Ryan Zhang on 2013-10-08 02:53:04 EDT —

OK, updated the file name as suggested.
(In reply to Rajesh Rajasekaran from comment #5)
> Sounds good to me.
> One suggestion. Let's consistently use '-' instead of '_' in the file names.