3 ms·

If I read this article right, if anyone breaks any part of the build it breaks for everyone? Doesn't sound very scalable. Shouldn't the main goal be to break up

If I read this article right, if anyone breaks any part of the build it breaks for everyone? Doesn't sound very scalable. Shouldn't the main goal be to break up your continuous integration steps so that a person in one end of the company can continue working even if a person in the other end broke his build? That way you can also add tags for flaky tests etc, to make your builds more reliable. Edit: I didn't understand before what people had against monorepos, but I guess if you tie an continuous integration builds to each repo then having a monorepo becomes a huge pain point. Are there any open source tools to fix this?

cjfd 7y ago
Presumably when a merge breaks the main branch, the merge gets reverted and it is the task of whoever pushed that to fix it. In the mean time the CI server can continue with the next branch/commit in the queue.
jacktli 7y ago
There is an explanation about how we handle this case when I talk about the failure-tolerance threshold. I go deeper into this in my GitHub Universe talk where I also talk about an alternative (but costlier) solution through running parallel branches, but unfortunately that talk is not posted up yet.