This prompted a shower thought: Isn't N separate repos actually strictly worse than a monorepo with N completely independent long-lived branches, where each per

This prompted a shower thought: Isn't N separate repos actually strictly worse than a monorepo with N completely independent long-lived branches, where each person checks out all the ones they need to work on under separate folders with `git worktree add`? I can think of only 2 ways that the multiple-branch monorepo is worse: 1. If the monorepo is large, everyone has to deal with a fat .git folder even if they have only checked out a branch with a few files. 2. Today, everyone expects different branches in a repo to contain "different versions of the same thing", not "a bunch of different things". But this is purely convention. The only real benefit that I can see of making a separate repo (over adding a new project directory to a "classic" monorepo) is the lower barrier to getting underway -- you can just immediately start doing whatever you want; the pain of syncing repos comes later. But this is also true when starting work under a new branch in the branch-per-project style monorepo: you can just create a branch from the initial commit, and away you go -- and if you need to atomically make changes across projects, just merge their branches first! What are the downsides I'm not seeing?