Issue 17755: Impact of merging profiles isn't small (uml25-ftf)
Source: Oracle (Mr. Dave Hawkins, dave.hawkins(at)oracle.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: While the L3 profile only contained 3 stereotypes, that doesn't make this change small and by implication trivial. My expectation was that it should be trivial for tools to migrate 2.4.1 models to 2.5. However if both L2 and L3 profiles are applied to a package, this isn't the case and it isn't clear how any associated data should be merged. I understand the motivation for combining the profiles, but I don't think this should happen in 2.5.

There is no mention of this migration issue in Annex E, which suggests that merely changing the version numbers is sufficient.

Proposed Resolution:

Continue to have separate profiles in 2.5 and consider merging them with full migration information in future UML version.
Source: dave.hawkins@oracle.com

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 25, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 17755


Problem: 0.008

Severity: Significant
Type: Revision
Location: 0.5 Resolution of Discussion Items p 13
Title: Impact of merging profiles isn't small
Description:
 
While the L3 profile only contained 3 stereotypes, that doesn't make this change small and by implication trivial. My expectation was that it should be trivial for tools to migrate 2.4.1 models to 2.5. However if both L2 and L3 profiles are applied to a package, this isn't the case and it isn't clear how any associated data should be merged. I understand the motivation for combining the profiles, but I don't think this should happen in 2.5.
 
There is no mention of this migration issue in Annex E, which suggests that merely changing the version numbers is sufficient.
 
Proposed Resolution:
 
Continue to have separate profiles in 2.5 and consider merging them with full migration information in future UML version.
Source: dave.hawkins@oracle.com
Date: 19th July 2012
Discussion