module naming convention feedback: HEAD, DEV, BETA, etc.

I would like to get feedback on what everyone thinks about module naming.
What file name should be used at what stage of development for the module?
Right now, there is no consistent naming between module developers.

Some modules are in endless DEV and the module is usable.
Some modules are DEV only when the developer feels it is not ready for testing and change to BETA when they feel it is OK to test.

What would the name be for a fix? For example, some developer releases a module as a point release 1.0 but users report an major bug. So the developer fixes the bug and releases a DEV version with the fix. Should this be the standard? Or should DEV only be for testing? And the developer should release a 1.01 point release for the fix?

Here is what I am thinking.

HEAD - base for all different branches of drupal. ie 4.7x, 5.x, 6.x Not for use. Not listed in update status module.
DEV - only for development, not even beta yet. Not listed in update status module.
ALPHA - have not seen anyone use it and maybe not necessary. kind of like DEV
BETA - some bugs, but ready for general public testing. the module will not cause major harm to the system. Listed in update status module.
RC - beta complete, if no bugs found then create a point release. Listed in update status module.
Point release - has gone through beta and at least one rc. If a bug is discovered, a dot release replaces the point release. ie 1.0 is replaced by 1.1 or 1.01. then 1.0 is removed from the repository. Listed in update status module.

What do you think?

From the comments I would like to create a document to add to the Module developer's guide in Handbooks.
If you know of a document on drupal written about this, please post the link.