4 ms·

Thank you. Monorepos of _that_ size is definitely far more complex and comes with certain issues that you mention. Although, I feel like you'll only hit that wa

• ithkuil 4y ago
  I'm a fan of monorepos personally. That said, I cannot pretend I don't see the problems with suboptimal tooling working in a medium size codebase. "big" and "medium" and "small" are quite subjective things. At $work we have a monorepo whose git repo grew to 1GB in size and where the CI turn-around is so high, and the glitches so often, that it often takes hours or even days to land some code to prod. Developers instinctively react by making bigger and bigger changes because the very thought of going through PR/review/CI/merge cycle once again terrifies them. It's all compounded by a security policy that forces a code review approval every time the source code changed, including when you have to apply fixes to build failures induced by a component you don't own. All of these things can and should be be fixed. But this is work, and is not urgent work so it's not often done at the same pace other stuff is done. This induces fatigue in the team and, as usually things go, people tend to blame the most easiest thing to blame: the monorepo. That's why I try to phrase the problem to be a tooling problem and not a monorepo problem. Clearly if you don't have a problem with your monorepo, you either already have good tooling, or you don't need good tooling.