Curious what the reasoning was here. This was filed under a Morgen support account three years ago, moved to In Review, then closed and marked Rejected with no reason posted. Is reopening it off the table?
I ask because naming is not cosmetic. A name requires a set to exist as an object, and right now it does not. Membership is an integer tag applied per calendar from the calendar's side, so there is nothing to attach a name to. That absence is what blocks the other requests on this board: no active-set indicator, no mouse-driven switcher, no way to see which calendars belong to a given set, and no clean mobile UI because there is no label to display. Rejecting names rejected the foundation for all of it.
Log in to comment and vote
Comments3
Willard Moore
Aug 5
Curious what the reasoning was here. This was filed under a Morgen support account three years ago, moved to In Review, then closed and marked Rejected with no reason posted. Is reopening it off the table?
I ask because naming is not cosmetic. A name requires a set to exist as an object, and right now it does not. Membership is an integer tag applied per calendar from the calendar's side, so there is nothing to attach a name to. That absence is what blocks the other requests on this board: no active-set indicator, no mouse-driven switcher, no way to see which calendars belong to a given set, and no clean mobile UI because there is no label to display. Rejecting names rejected the foundation for all of it.
I wrote up the pattern in more detail on the mobile request, with screenshots: https://feedback.morgen.so/p/calendar-sets-for-mobile/comment/6a73923412d27b8d7012250a
Oct 15, 2024
May 31, 2023