Yup, it seems that the Arduino Team wants to squash discussion of this topic meaning they have not intention of implementing it. Too bad, I'm sticking with Sloeber.
Yeah, it must be. I see the evil "Arduino Team" always closes all the discussions of the topic here on the forum. ....Oh wait, they haven't done that at all, I'm confused.
What many community members fail to understand is that GitHub issues are not a forum and that unstructured discussion and worthless "+1" comments on them are not appropriate. The place for this sort of discussion is the forum NOT GITHUB.
Everyone who watches the repository receives a notification whenever any reply is made on any of the issues and PRs. It is important for the developers and maintainers of the project to watch the repository to make sure we see the valuable feedback from the contributors. The people who worth to develop and maintain Arduino's projects do this for hundreds of repositories, each of which contain many issue threads. This means that we receive a large number of notifications every day.
When those notifications contain valuable information, great! But when the community adds unnecessary comments it means we must waste our time sorting through them instead of doing productive work. And the unnecessarily negative comments can have a significant psychological toll that also impacts productivity. So making such comments actually interferes with the completion of fixes and enhancements that would greatly benefit the entire Arduino community.
This is the reason why I always lock the issue threads when they become a source of low quality noise. I understand very well that might prevent others from adding actually valuable information, and thus hamper the resolution. So this is yet another way the community's practice of making pointless comments on GitHub is harmful.
You should only ever comment on an issue to provide technical information you believe will assist with the resolution of the issue. @hmeijdam@gfvalvo what was the technical information you hoped to add to the issue? I sure don't see it here.
Fair enough, thanks for delineating the purpose of the two venues. So let me rephrase my comment.
Boy, it sure would be nice to see an update from the IDE 2.x development team here on the Forum regarding plans for implementing the feature. Something along the lines of one of the following:
We definitely plan to implement this feature in timeframe XXXXXXX.
We definitely plan to implement this feature but don't yet know the timeframe.
We're not sure yet whether or not we'll implement this feature.
We are definitely NOT implementing this feature.
Then, nail that thread (write locked to normal users) as a sticky right at the top of the IDE 2.x sub-Forum, to be updated as appropriate.
I don't personally have the technical capabilities to implement such a feature myself, and don't have the authority to allocate Arduino's funds to pay a developer who is capable of doing so to implement it. So this is not something I can provide.
I get what you are saying, but in the end what matters is delivering the feature; not empty words about delivering the feature. As the saying goes: "under promise, over deliver".
If the decision was made to NOT implement the feature then the GitHub issue would be closed with a statement about the reason for declining it.
Nothing technical. I had hoped to see some insight as to if/when this regression would be fixed, but by now decided to stay on V1 indefinitely. It does all I need.