Rebranding for our different build types

[Z-Man]

Hey, I got completely automated Linux builds and uploads to launchpad working, complete with rebranding support so we can keep builds from trunk and stabilization branches separate. (Completely separate. People can install them in parallel without interference, and if they use the ppa they only get updates on the types they want). What shall we call them? Humble suggestions:

stable builds (0.2.8.3.1, 0.4.0) : short name armagetronad, long name Armagetron Advanced. Obviously.
Question: should release candidates go in there, too? They may still contain uncaught bugs, but so may the 'stable' releases themselves. And the point of a release candidate is that if it's good, you just switch the version number and call it a release. What if there's a bug in the rebranding?

builds from stabilization branches, be it automatic snapshots (0.2.8_alpha20110720), hand-picked alpha builds (same version scheme) or betas (0.2.9_beta1): short name armagetronbe, long name "Armagetron Beta".

builds from trunk, all kinds: armagetronex, "Armagetron Experimental"

I think two testing brands suffice. My OCD self wants to differentiate between alphas and betas from the two possible sources or maybe several stabilization branches at once, but more brands only confuse, 'armagetronal' would cause tab-completion grief.

[Vitty]

Where are the short names used? If it's for something like packages names then i'd suggest something like armagetronad, armagetronad-beta, armagetronad-experimental. Too many abbreviations can sometimes be confusing.

I would put release candidates under stable builds. They'd only been built once bugs have been ironed out after reports from people using the beta release, so newer bugs (if they ever exist) will only be caught when they're used by a wider user base.

[Z-Man]

Where are the short names used? If it's for something like packages names then i'd suggest something like armagetronad, armagetronad-beta, armagetronad-experimental. Too many abbreviations can sometimes be confusing.

Yeah, package names and executable names (and other file and directory names). I tend to run my games from terminals, so to me, executable names matter. And your suggestion is good, arma<TAB> gives plain armagetronad, arma<TAB>-<letter><TAB> the others. Makes room for alpha, too, should we want it.

[dlh]

Looks good. I agree, release candidates should go under the stable category.

When beta.armagetronad.net was operational, I could do automated Mac OS X releases. It's trunk only, but it'd probably be simple enough to update it to use launchpad.

[Tank Program]

Looks good to me as well.