5 ms·

> They can also deal with transparency That's a fair point. Vintage style opacity is something that's blocked on WinUI 3 unfortunately. I wish there was a bett

by zadjii 6y ago

> They can also deal with transparency That's a fair point. Vintage style opacity is something that's blocked on WinUI 3 unfortunately. I wish there was a better answer than that, but that's the world we live in. I promise you, as soon as we can move to WinUI 3 and get that vintage style opacity, we will be. Tab tearoff and reattach is literally the thing I'm starting on next week. I've had some promising prototypes, but it's a _lot_ of work. Theming is one of my personal pet features, and it made me really sad to have to cut it from 2.0. Something about a global pandemic really made it hard to ship everything we wanted this year. Extensions are fully a 3.0 feature. That's definitely not landing any time on this side of 2022.

siproprio 6y ago
I looked at the repository, and quake mode is priority 3, and the settings UI is priority 0. Quake mode is more upvoted than settings UI. And don't get me started on WinUI 3. Everytime I look at the WinUI roadmap, it gets pushed further, with the wanted features removed, and irrelevant things prioritized. And that's by the same team that shipped UWP 1.0
- zadjii 6y ago
  Upvotes are not the only way of measuring the popularity of an issue, though they certainly are the easiest. The settings UI has had a _ridiculous_ number of issues filed asking for the same thing, while quake mode had much fewer. For whatever reason, people are more willing to upvote the existing quake mode issue, rather than file a new issue, compared to users asking for the settings UI. Perhaps there's some commentary on the type of users asking for those features that could be made based on their behavior. Plus, I'm literally working on a [quake mode spec](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/9274 https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/9274). We're reviewing that next week. I've got a prototype.Quake mode required a lot more infrastructural work than the SUI, so it was my opinion that we might not be able to get to it this release cycle (i.e. 2.0). As it turns out, we're closer than I thought we would be. We can make progress on lots of different things all at once - there is surprisingly, more than one dev on the team. The roadmap doc is not something that we update all that frequently. We've got better things to do - like work on features :)

by zadjii 6y ago

siproprio 6y ago

I looked at the repository, and quake mode is priority 3, and the settings UI is priority 0. Quake mode is more upvoted than settings UI. And don't get me started on WinUI 3. Everytime I look at the WinUI roadmap, it gets pushed further, with the wanted features removed, and irrelevant things prioritized. And that's by the same team that shipped UWP 1.0

zadjii 6y ago
Upvotes are not the only way of measuring the popularity of an issue, though they certainly are the easiest. The settings UI has had a _ridiculous_ number of issues filed asking for the same thing, while quake mode had much fewer. For whatever reason, people are more willing to upvote the existing quake mode issue, rather than file a new issue, compared to users asking for the settings UI. Perhaps there's some commentary on the type of users asking for those features that could be made based on their behavior. Plus, I'm literally working on a [quake mode spec](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/9274 https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/9274). We're reviewing that next week. I've got a prototype.Quake mode required a lot more infrastructural work than the SUI, so it was my opinion that we might not be able to get to it this release cycle (i.e. 2.0). As it turns out, we're closer than I thought we would be. We can make progress on lots of different things all at once - there is surprisingly, more than one dev on the team. The roadmap doc is not something that we update all that frequently. We've got better things to do - like work on features :)