Still not entirely sure it is. But thanks, roger than and will do!
Genuinely quite upset at the lack of response at all here. I feel like there’s so many threads in this forum which get super large and then get left almost as a status quo complaint. This is such a major issue for a number of users (makes Obsidian genuinely unusable on quite a few existing file structures) that I’m surprised it’s not really being acknowledged. Would love for some serious addressing from the devs/mods.
We wrote a post today to address the lack of responses:
1 Like
Thank you for the reply! I do appreciate the significant number of feature requests that must need looking at, but it would be amazing if threads could be tagged with the reasons they’re currently in limbo. From the post you linked, a couple of clear things are mentioned such as “requires more changes than expected”, “unclear implications for other users”, or other things like “untriaged” or if the request is accepted to proceed but not a priority, then something like “in queue”.
What stands out to me is the disparity between the super clear (and helpful) roadmap, to the sudden quagmire of feature requests that aren’t really remotely classified (or if they are, its 100 posts up and not trivial to find). I’d love to see treatment more similar to github issues if that makes any sense.
The roadmap contains major new functionalities that we have committed to implement (and it is vague on the details).
The feature requests on the forum are discussed internally, periodically, but there is no public comment on them.
Sorry, I do get that, I just wish there was a middle ground where there is no clear commitment like being put on the roadmap but a clear labelling of how the FR is being perceived unlike the opaque internal discussions we can’t see.