It appears I will have to restrain myself communicating across the pond.
*waves from France* heya Please do communicate.
I may be in the minority here, but I don't see how Blender 2.80 support should be a big priority (regardless of the complexity of the task).
Blender 2.80 looks great, and it has many improvement; but in the end I do'nt see a lot that could improve *our* work. Blender is not a game level editor and most of the new features I see are really directed at animation, FXs, or rendering.. Sure there are a few ncie things here and there, but nothing I see that really justify the amount of work it will take to support it. The biggest change is probably the UI; and that nothing vital IMHO. 2.79 work really well, is stable, and has pretty much everything we need to make Ages. Staying on it allows us to refine the existing base, improve ease of use, and improve the documention (which will have to be 70% re-done when we eventually move to 2.80...)
I'm all for improvements, but to me catching up on 2.80 just seems too much work for the little gain we'll get from it.
(beside, I'm not a fan of the new UI on 2.8; I don't like radial menus, and the black and white icons are a non-sensical decision. So you'll have to pry 2.79 from my cold dead hands. )
One thing that might looks potentially interesting, but would be muuuch later down the road, could the new viewport rendering system (theoretically) allow for a viewport to display proper Uru shaders? (I have no idea) . Right now that's one area of development that would benefit from a shorter interation time. Being able to check a shader right into Blender, rather than having to build an Age and test it in Uru would be a nice time saver.