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
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.
Sounds good to me. One suggestion. Let's consistently use '-' instead of '_' in the file names.
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.
Verified in BPMS 6.0.0.ER4 the bundles are called as suggested: jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-4-deployable-eap6.x.zip jboss-bpms-6.0.0-redhat-4-deployable-generic.zip