1.23.5 + 40=25?

I’ve come across a lot of dark mutterings in-world with people getting uptight about the “promised” raising of the Group limit from 25 to 40. LL had indicated they’d “hoped” to get it out by the end of the year, but also stated that performance issues, etc., may actually lead to it being rolled back, and that extensive testing was required.

Well, from my point of view, I’ve lived within the 25-group limit for so long (and can remember days when it was less than that!), I’d prefer to wait for the code to be sorted rather than seeing it rushed through, rolled out and then withdrawn against because it does end up further impacting the server-side of things.

However, in hearing these complaints about the “failure” of LL to raise the limit, a little thought occurred to me. Most of the people making the complaint, I’ve noticed, are using Phoenix / Imprudence / Ascent (development of which appears stalled). But…my understanding is that the raising of the Group limit requires code changes on both sides of the equation – server and Viewer.

This being the case, will those using 1.23.5-based Viewers actually get to see the benefit? How extensive will the code-change be? Will the server-side change preclude back-porting to the Snowglobe code base? Then there is the fact that Phoenix is already into it’s final release, and switches over to maintenance-only releases in the new year (which implies bug fixes rather than new code updates) to make way for Firestorm. Imprudence may well be in the same condition by the time the Group limit is raised, given the shift in emphasis there to Kokua once Impru 1.4 hits the download pages. So would the inclusion of the necessary Viewer-side code be classified as a “maintenance update”? How extensive is it likely to be? Given that most 1.23.5 functionality is gradually being pushed aside by LL (hence the decisions by both the Phoenix and Imprudence teams to focus on viewers using the V 2.x code base), will it even be worthwhile for said dev teams to seek to incorporate the new code if it is more than just a few nips and tucks?

Of course, there will remain other Viewer options that may well support the new functionality as they doggedly continue to work within the Snowglobe code environment; but again, this goes back to my first observation as to whether the server-side will support / recognise Snowglobe-based code? Time will tell, but it might be an interesting little conundrum all ways round…