The claim that you would have to decode all previous frames in the entire video is... completely baffling to see coming from the dev. He's arguing a stupid technicality that a video might not have keyframes. That's not a reason to omit the feature entirely.
Going back from frame 500000 to frame 499999 is in the limiting case as complex as seeking from 1 to 499999, and in most cases far better.
I think the forum thread would be better answered "you do it, I don't need this feature" which is basically the gist of it and is a completely fair answer.
Seriously, I don't get these people that have infinite demands from open source developers and contribute zero.
I'm relatively sure this can be implemented in terms of timestamp-based seeking. Quite possibly the metadata of the frames is already in the memory, further simplifying the process.
Variable frame rate (VFR) videos break this approach. It might seem like an esoteric edge case, TV and movies aren't VFR after all, but VFR is extremely common in videos from smartphones.
There are TV shows that have telecined film segments and also interlaced VFX sections. While this wasn't broadcast as VFR the best way (as in highest quality result) to convert to a fully progressive frame sequence for display on modern displays would end up recombining the two fields for telecined segments (keeping the framerate) while doubling the framerate during deinterlacing for the VFX segments.
But VFR is also irrelevant to the problem at hand since it doesn't make it harder to find the next keyframe before the current frame - you need an index for that anyway.