3 ms·
If 99% of issues required cross-repo coordination, then those repos by definition should not have been distinct from each other. Splitting code into separate re
by preseinger 4y ago
If 99% of issues required cross-repo coordination, then those repos by definition should not have been distinct from each other. Splitting code into separate repos only makes sense if changes can be shipped in isolation.
1 repo == 1 bounded context == 1 isolated unit of deployment.
- joshuamorton 4y agoThen any time you have fan-shaped dependencies, you need a monorepo. Which, well, the Uber people clearly have since these big changes exist.
- AlexanderDhoore 4y agoNo true scotsman would split up repos wrong.
- zero_shift 4y ago> 1 repo == 1 bounded context == 1 isolated unit of deployment. The most obvious counterpoint: many systems of record need to scale command operations (writes) and query operations (reads) separately. So you absolutely would have separate programs, ASGs etc for those two roles
- preseinger 4y agoHow is this a counterpoint?
- zero_shift 4y agoThey wouldn’t have a single deployment but exist in one bounded context.
- preseinger 4y agoOh, indeed, my mistake. A team can of course deploy its bounded context at whatever granularity it prefers. The important thing is just that that deployment schedule is unrelated to the deployment schedule of other teams/contexts.