[Uml-devel] Re: CVS developer access

[Jens Krüger]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, 15. Oktober 2002 14:11 schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jens [iso-8859-1] Krüger wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 15. Oktober 2002 00:20 schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> > > > > That worked brilliantly.  How close do you think that is to being
> > > > > ready to put in CVS?
> > > >
> > > > I'm ready to put it into the CVS. I put all changes in the current
> > > > code without removing the clip functionality. So should it be
> > > > possible to import the most of the old uml files down to version 4
> > > > (version 1-3 not included in the import code, I think this is not
> > > > necessary).
> >
> > I did not understand this. I attached the diff against the CVS, so all
> > may try my patch. I compressed it with bzip2 because the list mails are
> > limited (to about 50k ?) per mail.  Or did you mean the additional
> > support of the versions 1-3?
>
My question and nonunderstanding was going to the followingsentence:

Jonathan:

"It might be an idea to send it to the list as a patch again so we can all
 make sure it works fine before you play with CVS."

 My mail from yesterday in the evening contained a patch to the current 
version at this time.  So you can try to apply my patch and may test it for 
finding some bugs and errors. The clipboard functionality should also work.

> You quote your own e-mail above, what don't you understand?  I suggested
> posting it as a patch again to the list so we would look at your
> serliaisation() changed (which I'm pretty sure I remember you saying you
> had altered to stop it interfereing with the clipboard).
>
> > > > There are also some changes in the writing the XMI file. I think we
> > > > should be compliant to the 1.2 specification of the XMI. There are
> > > > some fix entries they should be changed in the version we put into
> > > > the CVS. These entries are the user name and the email address of the
> > > > user. We should add this information to the umbrello getting from the
> > > > KDE and the mail setup. Has anybody an idea how this works?
> >
> > Do you have the specification of the 1.1 format? It read in the 1.0 and
> > 1.2 that in the documentation section may be  an entry for owner and  an
> > entry for contact.
> > I think it would be a good idea to implement the UML according to a
> > standard. We may decide for the version 1.0, 1.1, 1.3 or 1.4, but we
> > should define the version of UML spec we want to support!
> > In this case our xml file should be compliant to this standard.
>
> It's XMI that were wanting to support, version 1.2 preferablly.  There is
> no 1.3 or 1.4 (that's UML).
>
> I may well be in the XMI spec but I'm not convinced that it's a useful
> feature.  There are privacy issues and what happens if the file is edited
> by someone else?  But if you think it's worth having then by all means put
> it in.
>
> > > We should use the file format as it stands for 1.1.
>
> By which I means Umbrello 1.1
>
> Jonathan Riddell
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Uml-devel mailing list
> umbrello-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/umbrello-devel

Jens