Is it possible to have the option to share a project with subproject?
Yes, a project having a sub-project should make no difference in if you can share it or not. Though, the sub-project will not be shared from my understanding.
This is problematic. I think the default behavior should be that if a project is shared, its sub-projects are also shared. This is how folders work in Google Drive, Dropbox, all modern filesystems, etc.
Having to share individual sub-projects is so cumbersome that it means we won't use them... which takes away some of the appeal of having that hierarchical structure.
Thanks for listening,
Following up, having played with this now a bit:
If I do share the sub-project (separately), when the recipient sees the sub-project in their account, it appears at the top level in their hierarchy.
Worse, they have the ability to indent and move it anywhere... even making what was the main project a sub-project! This completely undermines my requirement for complete control!
Issue added to Votebox:
Thank you for adding this request to the Votebox. We chose not to include grouped projects being shared because this can lead to serious security and privacy issues/concerns if someone wants to share only data in one project and the other person will suddenly see all sub-projects - this mistake could not be corrected by the user as all this data could already be accessed by the other person and to prevent it, you would have to edit the structure just to share the project, then edit it back.
Nonetheless, we may consider adding it as an option in the future.
Thanks for the quick reply. I see the concern about inadvertently sharing more than intended.
Unfortunately, the downside to not having the feature is pretty severe. If my hierarchy looks like:
- Step 1
- Step 2
- Step 1
- Step 2
... and I share all six (!) lists, it's possible that on the other end, after some rearranging, the left-column looks like this:
Perhaps that's a worst case scenario. But I'd suggest that a) people mostly understand how hierarchy works with sharing, and b) lots of comparable workflows exist in the consumer space.
Your thought about a warning may be a good answer. Dropbox doesn't give you one, but if you create a new item in a shared folder within Google Drive, it does ask "Create a new item and share it with the same people?" Perhaps Todoist could say, when sharing a project that has subs, "Share this project and all sub-projects?"
We'll keep that in mind for future updates. A lot of features and improvements are always being added to Todoist so we'll consider this one as well :)
I am also using a software called WRIKE (wrike.com) that works like dropbox or drive when sharing, and sometimes I do not want this behavior. I believe the best solution will be to let the user choose how much want to share. Wrike is even having a new version that lets users define folder permissions. http://www.wrike.com/blog/12/30/2013/Folder-Permissions-Greater-Control-Over-Data-Editing-Rights
I agree with this thread. I would like the option of sharing sub-projects or choose which sub-projects will be shared. If I can choose, then I believe it eliminates the privacy concern. I just started trying to use this feature today and granted I can manually move the sub-projects., but it is still a pain. Thanks for the feature though as I do look forward to using it! I think I might be able to convert a few more people over if this feature improves.
Totally agree with you.
If i want to share my todo's list in a specifit order of priority... it's a must have feature to share projects and subprojects exactly as I created them. Otherwise my partners won't know which task goes first...
We are just test driving TDoist with my whole team, and we were about to all go premium... but my manager found the issue of the hierarchy and he is not happy at all with the shared hierarchy issue.
In my case I would like to keep using todoist, so would the hierarchy sharing be activated some time soon? that would be great.
Unfortunately, we can't give you an ETA on when such option becomes available :-(
+1 (keep order & apply sharing to all things included) (+1)
I also need this. I have organized several subprojects under one specific heading. I need a group of people to have access to all of it exactly as I have organized it. Not all in the group are all that tech savvy, so sending them 6 or 8 lists would only confuse them (especially if the hierarchy is lost).
Motivation: If this can get implemented, I know I can get a LOT of people in my organization to use this application. :) Hurry :)
My Whole Team is ready to start using Todoist, It would be great to have this functionality available when that happens. Any update?
Please everyone use the votebox
Recommendation: Consider having the option of sharing one, two,....or all. Perhaps check boxes of which items you would like to share with someone.
I'm in complete agreement with this thread. I'm fairly new to TD but my husband and I are sharing a project with several sub-projects. Whoever creates can set the hierarchy but the other person doesn't see it. It's crazy-making. And dis-orderly. And very un-TD-like. Please consider the change.
My team and I agree on this too!
I've been testing the app to integrate it in our workflow for over a month now, and now I've shared my 30+ projects with subprojects, it's quite a hassle to see my very nice structure of projects all ripped out of eachother...
So please put the sharing of subprojects in, along with the keeping of the project-structure, because you can understand this takes quite some time to rearrange.
Love the app though!
+1 on this.
BTW, is the votebox gone for good? I tried to cast my vote in the votebox below, but it says TD has done away with votebox.
+1 here as well
Our team purchased Todoist and we're amazed that there is no possibility to share subprojects with primary projects since, as noted in previous messages, people assume this feature to be included in any modern collaborative software. Otherwise Todoist serves us brilliantly.
I think it would be best to give the customers the ability to choose weather they want to share the whole project or only certain parts of it, instead of hampering the use of the software because someone might mess up their sharing :)
+1 from me, as well. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but it's a bit of an annoyance.
+1 for me....love the app (for personal use it is a killer app) but this is a collaboration bottleneck.
I'd like to be able to share the whole thing or pieces (with structure in tact) and decide if certain sections are read only or full access.
Came to this thread when our trial run at work for ToDoist identified this weakness. I +1 the majority above.
Having the ability to share a whole project with sub-projects, locking in the hierarchy, would make the most sense to meet my team's immediate need. I hear the concern about security, but if a user has sensitive content, they can simple choose to share a sub-project at at time.
Long term fix would be to allow a whole project share with a lockout of select sub-projects. That's a tiered security element, so I understand that would take longer to develop. ToDoist Development Team, please dare to be imperfect and give us a quick fix for this first!
I see some above have discussed that they're evaluating ToDoist for their organizations. I guess one could read that as pressure. I'd see it as an unmet market opportunity with ambassadors waiting to sell your product. I know I am.
Correction to my post, what I meant to say was,
"... if a user has sensitive content, they can simple choose to extract out the sensitive sub-project. It would be easier for me to keep track of that shard than to have to manage multiple, fragmented sub-projects I've shared one at a time."
Just jump to another program! There are a lot of other alternatives managing like god this simple feature!!
Bye bye Todoist!
More than a year since this request... Todoist team should start using wanderlust, nozbe, omnifocus, things2 or any other "friendly" tool for being efficient and get their TASKS finally DONE!!
We are currently in the evaluation period for todoist, and we are also thinking of switching to another service because of this unintuitive missing feature.
@Francis: which one of these alternative services do you suggest most?
Agree with all the comments above. It would be helpful if someone from TD would engage in a conversation about if this is seriously being considered. I have not met a single TD user yet that doesn't want it. Thank you!
We're reading every reply in every thread and keep track of all requests and suggestions. Although right now we are not working on such implementation, we may of course consider it in future updates, but again - we don't know when at this point.
David, thank you for the quick reply! It is helpful to know that TD is monitoring these forums. Truly, thank you.
You mentioned back in January (in the thread above) that TD would consider this option. Thank you! Then in February you mentioned that there was no set date, which is understandable considering that this is still just a suggestion. I think what would be helpful is if we could know why this it not being implemented (outside of the security risk mentioned above). It seems from this thread that there are a number of people who would use TD if it had this feature, or who sadly are going to leave TD if this feature isn't added. Though I'm sure TD has many features that people want (or require), is there a main reason why TD is not moving on this one? Plenty of other companies use this feature (Dropbox, Google Drive, Sugarsync, others), so it seems that it's been vetted so as to address the security risk, as long as the user is warned. But without this feature, it seems almost untenable to use TD as a sharing project manager, since almost all serious projects are likely to have sub-projects if they are big enough to need to be shared amongst a group. Though perhaps our personal projects may rarely need sub-projects, I can't imagine many companies not needing sub projects regularly. Seeing as it is incredibly impractical to have to share each subproject, I think we are all wondering how TD handles this for their own projects. Does TD share each sub-project when working on things? Do they request the "sharees" recreate the file structure on their own?
What we are having to do to get around this is to name each subproject with the title of the root project. So if the project is "Smith", then we have to name the subproject "Smith-garage", so that the sharee knows what that subproject is. It's a lot of work for an app that is so good otherwise at limiting clicks, etc.
A possible compromise would be to have a "new folder" option, and that can be the root project, and then put projects underneath that folder to. Then if you share that folder, it will share all the projects inside of it. However, if you create projects and sub projects as TD has it setup now, then it will not share the sub projects.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
I sure hope that TD can add this feature, though I don't think it's a deal breaker for us at this point. We love TD, and have almost 100% positive experience with it. The only irritation has been to have to share each subproject, and then tell my group members how to order those projects.
Thank you again for taking time to help with this.
On the back-end, this is not an implementation as easy as it would appear. Right now is a very simplified and specific process - one project with a certain ID is being requested to share with one account of a certain ID, the account gets an email notification mentioning this project and a link to accept the invitation which links user ID to project ID - very straight-forward.
Implementing such change is what we'd consider a "full process" - not something that can be added with a line of code or a minor change, but the whole process - changing the email invitations, generating different type of invitation accepting links for them, allowing the system to link multiple project IDs to an account at once, translating all modified emails to all supported languages and repeating this for iOS and Android separately as a back-end change alone wouldn't do it.
Now, to clarify - that's of course not an excuse, we've been adding even more complex features, but that's one of the reasons why it hasn't been added from one day to another right-away. Other reasons are of course the demand which only becomes clear once some time passes as at any launch of any features, dozens if not hundreds of requests for every possible modification of the new feature come up and since our main goal is and always will be - simplicity, we have to carefully pick the most useful improvements that won't break the concept of Todoist being an easy to use app that doesn't ask you to fill 10 forms before you can decide which projects to share with which sub-projects with which people etc. It must be a very easy, clear and of course secure - at no point should you be able to accidentally reveal some potentially crucial and secret information from sub-projects when sharing one project. This alone introduces a dilemma - make the UI and process easy enough, but also hard enough to not make it accidentally accessible.
That said, again, this is just a small insight into our thought process, we can't give you a clear reason why this feature has not been added by a certain deadline. It's a combination of a lot of reasons. What I can assure you is that we read all feedback, pass it to the developers, let them know what's often requested and based on that and other reasons, something may be implemented.
As for how we handle this - so far, we seem to use sub-tasks more than sub-projects. They offer 4 indent levels so we very rarely have something so complex that there's need for a 5th level that would then become a level 1 sub-project. That's again, just to answer your question and not a reason why this feature isn't implemented yet ;-)
+ 1000 for this feature (as the votebox seems unaivalable)
I'd like to know how others do without this feature
After testing your solution of using subtasks instead of subproject to ease the sharing of projects/subprojects, many problems appear :
- If I decide to lower the level of indent of a task, the level of all substasks attached to this one won't get lower, we have to manually lower the indent of all the subtasks (and even worse when you have one or more level inside these subtasks)
- let's say someone accidently check the box on a main task, he can cancel that but all the subtask will keep the status of "done", we have to manually uncheck every box...that could lead to a lot of issues...losing things...etc
- No drag and drop into subtasks, that slows a lot the process of ordering all tasks that have been thrown in the Team Inbox...
I've just read all the thread and understand the technical difficulties to implement that but unfortunately this could become a no-go for us...and for many other as I understood...
David, thank you for your super helpful reply. I really appreciate it! I understand now that it's not as easy to implement, and that there are other priorities for TD at the time. Here's hoping that this feature will be implemented soon.
Thank you again for your quick and helpful response.
that would be a great feature :-) +1
I have same problem, TD is of limited use if I can't share a structured project group. Such a shame. Was hoping for an Omnifocus for teams experience. It is vital that we share most projects within a structure.
It would be great to be able to share a project with all sub-projects and have the structure preserved. Very useful when collaborating on large projects with coworkers.
+1 for me as well. It is a pain to have to share every individual project. It would be extremely beneficial to have this feature.
Todoist should really consider providing more support to customers to demonstrate how to use their platform to reach certain goals. I was initially very happy to use todoist and became a premium member, only to learn of all these issues. I DEFINITELY thought that i subprojects would automatically be shared....much to my chagrin.
Then after reading all this madness about subtasks. I was surprised I couldn't even find info online about subtasks vs. subprojects. What's going on??? Just collecting $29 huh?
+1 for Share project with sub projects
+1 As of now this is not usable for us. We would create weekly projects with 7 sub project folders with 10 people. That would mean, every week our people have to indent 70 sub projects manually... and imagine the mess if we launch two main projects with same-name subfolders....
Michael, agreed. It's just confusing why this isn't being addressed. I unfortunately have moved on to use another app, as I can't wait for them to update this.
I should say, "My entire team has moved on to another app".
@Ryan: Can you tell me, which app? We are also looking for Todoist alternatives because of this issue. Thx.
Well, the Todoist frustration with not only sub-projects, but also other TD issues actually made our team re-evaluate our collaboration needs. So I doubt you will like my answer.
We actually are finding that collaborating, though necessary, is secondary to having an app that we all like. And it's tough for us all to like the same app, since we are process our own work differently. So, we are letting everyone choose for themselves, and then we will use a collaboration tool if we absolutely need it (Todoist, or Asana likely). After taking a GTD class online (Skillshare with Tiago Forte), I am now using Things! It's crazy that I've come full circle over these past 5 years or so, and come back to a crazy simple and outdated app. But Things it is.
I started using Things when it came out 5 years ago, and quickly moved on to other apps that either had more features, or updated themselves quicker (Wunderlist, Todoist, Omnifocus, Evernote). However, when I saw Tiago's Skillshare GTD videos recently, and saw that he was using Things, I decided to give it another try.
Things has a TON of limitations. And it's interface is crazy dated. But, it does the basics of GTD really wonderfully, and I think that is what I have been missing. I've been trying to get Todoist and Wunderlist and others to fit into the GTD model, instead of just using an app that did GTD out of the box (I actually first tried Omnifocus, the other app that I've always wanted to master, but quickly remember that OF is just too complicated for it's own good....I just want to shake the developers to get them to wake up!).
So, for now, Things is working for me really well. Again, there are a ton of limitations, but it's simplicity helps me focus on the tasks at hand, and it's actually it's lack of features that help me not get caught up in all the features! I just get work done.
So, that's my answer. I hope it's helpful.
David Trey, just read your July 8th post. Thank you for such a complete and straight forward response. Breath of fresh air in the online support world!
I love ToDoist for personal use and will continue to use it. As a business collaboration tool though, we'll have to go a different direction (I won't advertise your competitor here). I'll keep checking in though. I'm rooting for such a responsive company with a great product.
+1 to see the heirarchy of projects get share - it's a little frustrating having to reorganise sub projects when they are shared with me and vice versa for my colleagues.
+1. This is really annoying when adding additional users. What we've done is set up the Projects hierarchy to mirror our organizational chart. Each user is shared on each level of the Projects hierarchy. The actual project that is being worked on is saved under the person that is in control of it and subtasks are assigned among the different users.
DS Manager - Billybob
DS Assoc - Jimbob
DS Assoc - Bobbybob
Do, when you click on the DS Manager - Billybob project, on the Tasks Pane you see:
Sell WidgetX to Home Depot - Due Tomorrow - Billybob
Make pricelist - Due Today - Jimbob
Make custom WidgetX presentation - Due Today - Bobbybob
Custom graphics - Due Today - Billybob
This way, everyone is already shared on the Project pane and the hierarchy is already set. We don't have to change sharing settings to be able to assign subtasks under the Tasks Pane.
But STILL, it is a pain in the backside to set up and it totally makes sense for Todoist to set up a way that we can share our Projects easier. You have a lot of business users -- people that will PAY for it -- that want this feature.
No argument justifies this basic feature to not be included. It is a completely foreseeable requirement for anyone who has a clue to what they are actually programming and therefore plain idiotic it is not included. Why even bother offering the possibility of creating project hierarchy in a COLLABORATION tool if it isn't preserved when COLLABORATING a.k.a. sharing.
I spent a good amount of time creating order in my hierarchy. On project level it is based on managerial fields of interest and on sub-project level on actual projects/cases. I am simply shocked to find out that work has been a complete waste of time, now that I shared my work with my office partner. I tested many collaboration aspects, but did not even bother testing if hierarchy was shared, because it is so logical, it never even remotely occurred to me it could possibly not be the case.
The argument concerning security risks is invalid (actually it is total bull**** i.m.o.). There is always the risk of human error, also without hierarchy. You could easily limit that risk (also legally) by asking a security question: "Are you sure you want to share this project and ALL its sub-projects with this person? The person you are sharing with will have access to ALL current and future sub-projects and tasks. If you only want to share a particular sub-project, consider sharing only that sub-project."
Very, very, very disappointed.
Asana works with a team based hierarchy. It starts by adding team mates to a team then creating projects for that team. Incidental members can be assigned sub-tasks. Team members see everything in their team. Incidental members only the subtasks. It makes a whole lot more sense and I am glad I implemented in other collaborations because of the free 15 team members per team. I liked TD's responsiveness and clear layout on first sight, so I chose it for my 2 p. office, but am now genuinely doubting the wisdom of that decision.
For the sake of not being regarded as complete tools, please make this available ASAP.
One last thing, the standard development team answer is "Thank you for your suggestion. It is not included, but we will consider including it in future versions." This obviously has turned out to be a complete discussion stopper. It is clearly aimed at getting people's hopes up, while the answers above clearly indicate there does not necessarily need to be any real intention of implementing it in the foreseeable future or ever at all, given the many arguments against it that apparently prevail, which I think are all trumped by the simple observation that everybody simply needs this and no-one cares or needs to care about the back-end challenges in making this happen. If it makes sense, it makes sense.
I mean I've been extremely disappointed with todoist. I thought it was THE answer to what I needed, I happily paid $29, and then....this. I've almost given up trying to figure out how I'm going to use Todoist. But the problem is, my airplane is broken while I'm trying to fly. Right now I've got to do an emergency detour by giving tasks out by email...and in the meantime see if I can salvage the Todoist tool to meet my needs.
You guys probably should close these discussion boards because you are leaving the doors wide open for competitors to see your flaws, then capitalize on them.
Another vote for this feature - shocked to find after setting up all my projects that when I started bringing others from the company into the system they couldn't see my hierarchies!
This will be only the beginning of what you'll be shocked by...
+1 for this, its something I mentioned in the Votebox quite sometime ago and I see there has been no update here - where the hell did the votebox go anyway?
My team and I have the business edition and manually indenting projects is proving a huge nightmare.
I love your product, but its not as simple as you make it out to be and is on occasion a little buggy. If a few things don't change fairly soon, I think I'll be seeking an alternative solution which is really annoying because I thought you were the best one out there.
Interesting that the karma icon here is wildly wrong. I've been the cheerleader of this software at my office for half a year now. I've brought on five new premium users, but this feature may kill it for us.
My boss, the CEO, is outraged at the mess that is made of her display every time I share projects with sub-projects with her. She still uses todoist for her own task list, but she ardently refuses to use it for collaboration, which puts a kibosh on my plans to bring our whole office into the ToDoist fold for all of our project collaboration.
I wish you well, because I don't like to think of having to move to a new product, but if you don't start listening to your users, I suspect I am going to have to find a different solution one of these days.
Struggling to see how I can deploy this across the business without subprojects sharing properly. My sub-teams are working on many different projects at once and they need visibility on all of them easily. This is very much the normal way of how sharing works on file servers etc. so I don't accept why this isn't how it is done here.
It also doesn't appear possible to assign a task tree to someone - e.g. if I create a task with various child items off it, if I assign the top level task to someone the child tasks don't get assigned too? This should at least give you the option to do so as it is a serious headache. Or am I missing something?
The primary issue for me is not that sub-projects need to be shared individually (PITA, but workable for me). The much bigger issue is that the hierarchy is not preserved across the multiple shared users. So, if I create:
Project assigning my overflow to someone
-->subproject Project One
-->subproject Project Two
I would like all of my tasks to show up on the other user's interface listed below the master project. Otherwise, they get Project One, Project Two, etc. all mixed in with their other projects. Blech.
I'm trying Trello. Please let me know if this is going to be another bad experience, but I've heard it's a little better for project management. And I need something free or cheap that will allow me to have a lot of users.
We tried Trello before Todoist but the lack of being able to see tasks (cards?) from different projects in date order all at once made it unusable for us.
I'm sure that with enough "constructive community encouragement", this sub project issue will get resolved.
I can only corroborate what others (as Iggy oder John Gross for instance) said: This feature is absolutely necessary for working good with shared projects. I suppose the problem is that on database level, projects (as tasks) are not really stored hierarchically as it seems from UI. For this reason the project- or task-tree cannot be shared so easily.
But this seems to me quite illogical: When I want to share a project containing subprojects, it is absolutely clear that I want to include all of them (and so all tasks and subtasks). When I don't want that a subproject is shared, I have to take it out from the project tree - as simple as that!
This should help to keep simple, I hope you'll consider it, ToDoist-Guys ;-)!
This is very disappointing and to read the attempts at stalling the discussion here is frustrating to say the least. My feelings are that implementing this at this point would be too difficult and they're simply not going to do it.
Time to look elsewhere I think.
We wanted this premium-version but i found out we can't share subprojects.
I think we might move over to Asana or Slack (shame)
this feature is so important :/
We got tired of waiting and moved - this product is not business ready and its a damn shame you've basically killed Wedoist.
According to your website, there are 28 people on your team - what the hell are you guys working on?
I admit this is almost useless for teams. If you need to share all projects for all team members you better have no subprojects :)
I have to admit...just began the business version yesterday and this is a game changer. Virtually useless in the business arena. A great personal ToDo program but need something that will do both. :(
I'm testing Todoist Premium and this is a huge problem for me too.
I want to deploy Todoist as our firm's task manager, and subprojects is very important to our workflow.
Sharing all of them as separate projects is a waste of time and fragments the information because the hierarchy is not preserved. Also the error margin is very high if each person has to reoder the hierarchy mannualy.
Please, reconsider this.
Is there some changes made in this problem? It is very important to out team too.
In Dec I will consider to pay for premium next year or not..
+1 as well
+1 (+10,000 really) for this simple and intuitive thing ...
Have been on the hunt for the right task manager for my small team. Even given this issue, I am sticking with TD (with the caveat that I believe it will get fixed fairly shortly and we can get by til then; I would be amazed if that has not rocketed to the top of their internal priority list).
Thought I would weigh in on a few things.
Tried Asana - no pop-up notifications, slow syncing, no desktop app, and not intuitive (enough) UI led my team to downvote this.
Tried Wunderlist - calendar doesn't sync to anywhere other than iCal and Google (although from Google you can sync to elsewhere), the master Lists at the top don't nest, otherwise good.
Looked at Trello, Wrike, Nozbe, Bootcamp, Slack, Evernote, and each of them had reasons why I wouldn't commit.
Out of all of them, Todoist is far and away the simplest to use from the get-go, the most accessible on-the-go and at-hand when you need it, the most intuitive, with really fantastic functionality and a LOT of great app integrations (my team was already using Toggl, Tripit, and Sunrise).
Then I found this issue - only after I convinced my team to switch, and moved all our tasks over before sharing to make an easy transition for them.
Sigh. Still, I can't imagine it's not going to get sorted really soon. The question is, can you get around it until then.
To introduce this to my team, I told them how to turn off email notifications using screenshots and Yosemite Markup to walk them through it. (so they don't get a huge email dump.)
Then once they confirmed, I shared all the projects with them, then took a screenshot of the way MINE was nested so that they could mimic it.
Yes it's clumsy, and they still have to do it instead of it being done automatically. But its a workaround. I also made a few screen-record videos to put on Youtube and send directly to the team instead of talking them through it individually.
Todoist team, thank you for everything you've done; please, please, listen to your constituent market here. They are begging for this functionality and you are actively bleeding business by not addressing it. Even a message to say, yes we've prioritized this, it is hopefully coming Q1, Q2, will give us some hold-out power instead of sending us elsewhere.
Tom, I suggested this over a year ago (in their older suggestion system which vanished) when I was using it in a personal capacity, then a few months ago I got the business on-board on the basis of the same assumption you just had, that they would fix it quite soon, we basically moved off Todoist shortly after.
Almost a year later, a new thread, 74 replies and still no response.
The Berlin based (you know who) company we moved to is very happy to reply to our e-mails/suggestions, quickly and with a smile. They've even included us in a BETA program or two for their upcoming business features that we asked about.
I'm not usually the type of person to come on a forum and complain, but I feel like the guys at Todoist and Wedoist seriously let us down.
We're sorry to hear that. We of course greatly appreciate all suggestions and will always keep improving Todoist based on them as we do year after year. We sometimes don't reply when we don't have any news about a certain requested feature, but as you can see, we've replied multiple times in this thread already :-)
That said, I can assure you that sharing whole project groups will definitely be added, but we want to make a great feature out of it, something that will allow you to easily set up work groups and share them.
Tom, though I wish I shared your optimism, I have to agree with Toufic. I don't think this is a priority for Todoist. I hope it is, but seeing as we have been trying to get this implemented for over a year, and there has been little response. Trey responded to me in July, and that was much appreciated. However, his response boiled down to this not being high on their priority list at the time, it not being easy to implement, and it not being sonneting they believe in (they were worried about security issues). Since we don't know what they are working on, this is certain a fine answer, even if it isn't the answer I want. However, I do not suspect at this time that they are working on this.
LOL...well, David Trey beat me to it, and proved me wrong! Thank you David for replying, and for the update that this is in the works. Once it is added, we will definitely considering coming back to TD. ;-)
@Ryan, hah! That's funny, two minutes difference ...
Thanks for commenting, David.
As heavily flawed as this one aspect is, I'm pretty blown away by the rest of the program and loathe to leave it for other ones that aren't as close to what my team needs ...
The problem is, I use this all the time, but some members of my team won't, and if they log in only every once in a while and find their projects completely cluttered, unorganized, and non-hierarchical, it will completely defeat the purpose of working as a team.
It is, in essence, a project manager that refuses to manage projects.
I did notice a notable language shift from "may consider," "can't give ETA," etc. to "will definitely be added", "assure you," in a 6 month time frame -- a tip of the cards to the rioting masses to give hope but not give away a big upcoming update? or to not promise too much too early? ... or simply more marketspeak?
Reg. the language we use, there's one reason why we put it this way - honesty. We don't want to lie to you and any other response at the given time would have been a lie. At first it was not a feature we had in our plans right-away, then is became something that will be done, but we couldn't specify when and now it's a certainty.
We can't give you a release date, though, if we ourselves don't have one and we prefer not to set such dates ahead to avoid releasing buggy features just to meet the deadline or disappoint you with every postpone of the release date. It's a workflow that allowed us to implement a lot of great requested features and we'll continue adding new ones and improving existing ones for many years to come :-)
Thanks very much for this reply David.
Completely understood. Your statement is supported by the fact that you've been putting out some smashing new integrations fairly consistently over the last year - it feels to me like the team is working flat out on a lot of fronts, and I know perfectly well how something that seems simple from the surface is actually a huge pain to program (as XKCD points out below).
Really looking forward to this capability. Thanks again David.