Hi,
The example of being forced to use UML menu to create extension makes me feel that there is something missing in our current configuration (we just had 0.9, we have room for improvment). I would expect that from the UML-RT menu, we can build any simple UML-RT model. My comprehension about UML-RT language is that it includes the required subset of 'plain' UML it needs, a bit as SysML relies on its UML4SysML subset of the UML language. In this case, generalization should be part of the UML-RT relathionship menu, the UML menu being used when dealing with for example activities or sequence, which are currently not part of the language. The content of the UML subset required for UML-RT should be at least what is needed in the facade (just guessing here...)
So what you proposed in the bug 507277 seems a very good starting point. Again, placing the relationship menu under new UML-RT Child, or as a sibling of it, is rather user dependent. It depends if you have a wide screen or one with a bigger height ;) I would place it at the same level of the new UML-RT Child menu, only because the semantic behind the selected element against which the menu is build is not the same. For the nodes, the selection will be the container of the created element. For the relationship, the selection is the source of the created element, and may not be the container.
For the UML property view, I would indeed propose to hide it on the basic level, as any required UML property should be accessible from UML-RT property view. And yes, both things (menus and property views) should be related, and the Architecture Framework should be the "glue" for those configurations.
So as a conclusion for the diagrams, it would be natural to continue on the same approach, e.g. creating a new UML-RT diagram menu?
Cheers,
Rémi