5 ms·
At a certain size, monorepo becomes the worst way to do it except for all the others. Essentially: version skew across numerous artifacts in a large organizati
by kylecordes 7y ago
At a certain size, monorepo becomes the worst way to do it except for all the others.
Essentially: version skew across numerous artifacts in a large organization starts to look like the version skew across an industry or ecosystem. The aggregate cost of dealing with it project by project is probably higher, at least that is what most of the biggest tech companies have concluded, than dealing with it at the source level using a monorepo and single-version policy.
- m0zg 7y agoWell, don't have version skew then? Require that anything merged to master doesn't break any tests? Require that tests exist in the first place? Google makes it work at a dramatically larger scale. Everything at tip-of-tree is always ready to go. EDIT: Looks like I've misread the parent's argument as one against monorepo. It was in fact an argument in favor, and one I agree with.
- joshuamorton 7y agoYeah but Google does that by being a monorepo.
- m0zg 7y agoLooks like I've misread the parent's argument as one against monorepo. My error.