P: Clone/Heal Tool rotation

iPadOS Pro 16.5.2, Lightroom Classic Mobile App

I have both LC and PS. I am constantly having to jump over to Photoshop from Lightroom when I'm using LR clone tool. The only reason/purpose I have to often do this is because LR doesn't offer a clone source-area rotation and flip (up/down,side/side) tool. This takes up a lot of time, breaks my focus, is frustrating and often forget what App I'm in I'm switching so much. There is a huge loss when comparing the time investment of this app switch for one e.g.) eyebrow vs. benefit to image but there's no other choice.

For me, I can't think of a Lightroom feature that would increase effieciency more than adding a clone source rotation/flipping tool

When attempting to heal areas that contain a hard edge, it would be incredibly helpful if you could rotate the source area to help line up the edges.

For instance, if trying to clone the branches of a tree, there are frequently plenty of good source areas, but the rotations won't match. Adding a slider to the heal / clone tool that permitted a rotation of the source area that transforms the selection before blending would solve this issue.

DxO PhotoLab has this functionality.

I'm sorry if I'm the first person to tell you, you may not get what you want. Or why based on how feature requests work here. If you have any further questions about Adobe products or issues in their operations do ask. Many giving volunteers are at your disposal. 

No assumptions, just go to any small viewcount thread and then refresh a few times.  All my previous comments still stand. 

“That's a simple refresh count, not unique viewers = unreliable data.  Someone with an agenda could easily manipulate that count. “

More assumptions.

So even fewer people care about such a feature in 12 years here. Got it. 🤥

That's a simple refresh count, not unique viewers = unreliable data.  Someone with an agenda could easily manipulate that count.  Adobe may have good data through the backend, but we dont have access to it.

I'm not an Adobe employee. I'm a user and volunteer.
I'm in no way expected to be impartial. I am, (I'm expected to be) and I have provided facts as to how feature requests and their results work. 
If you don't know how many people have viewed this thread, I'm happy to help. It (the data) is quite transparent.

Given how hard Adobe has made it to find this fourm 41 upvotes seems like a huge number to me.  Since we dont have any idea of how many people see these threads there is no context to put the number of upvotes into.  You can't point at meaningless numeber and call it 'data'.

If you are a moderator here, should you not be identified as an Adobe employee?  And should you not be impartial in your comments?  You only seem to want to shut down discussion.

"So, you can't."

I can't do the impossible, which was explained: no number of votes guarantees a feature request will become real.

And Adobe has never promised anywhere that X number of votes will produce a feature. 

Facts: Some Adobe team members monitors votes. When a vote total after 12 years is a mere 40, your best tactic is to get more votes. But again, it does not guarantee anything gets done.  

"Both of your replies in this thread add absolutely nothing to the discussion, they only attempt to shut it down"--

If that were what I wanted, I'd have it shut down. I don't. I want you to understand how this 'system' works, and I'm strongly suggesting you get more votes tallied. And I'm explaining why, after 12 years, you haven't seen any change; it isn't guaranteed and was never promised to be. 

I'm sorry if I offended you with my experience, expertise, and facts.