Why is issue 42 being rejected, multiple users request it?

[Caveman-Dan]

Hi,
I recently opened a feature request regarding the addition of an option to force Fossify Calendar to always open in month view see here. It was quickly shut down with reference to to issue 42. There is no pertinent reason given as to why this feature is not being considered other than "not planned".

Given that there are multiple users asking for the addition of such a feature I'm interested to know why it is not being considered for production. I strongly feel that the current configuration generates unnecessary friction by making the user change the view every time they open the app. My guess is that this configuration is enough of an annoyance to many prospective users that they would favour a different calendar app over Fossify Calendar.

Forgive me if I am wrong but my guess is that including the afore mentioned option would be a fairly trivial update and might result in higher uptake of the app and a smoother user experience. At the very least Fossify Calendar would be more configurable and amenable to its users.

Can anyone shed any light on to the reason for rejecting issue 42?
If not can the decision be reconsidered in favour of a more configurable UX?

[Aga-C]

It's enough to just write a comment in an original issue. We read closed issues, and if there's a need, we can revalidate our decisions. Writing over and over again about the same thing in multiple places doesn't work in a favor of a certain request. Especially that compatibility with 3rd party apps isn't a priority for us.

[Caveman-Dan]

I apologise I wasn't sure if anyone would read the closed threads.

Thanks for your time.