4 ms·

Versioning introduces a big maintenance cost, both on the side of the developer of a service and on the consumer side. On a monorepo you have a single version,

Versioning introduces a big maintenance cost, both on the side of the developer of a service and on the consumer side. On a monorepo you have a single version, and can be sure that everything works together on it. You are forced to address the costs of changing APIs continuously, but all components are always up to date. With multiple repos, versioning hell is real.

chipdart 2y ago
> Versioning introduces a big maintenance cost, both on the side of the developer of a service and on the consumer side. Not really. From the producer side it only requires that a) you do not break your contract, b) when you need to break a contract, you bump your version number, c) when no one uses older versions, remove the code. From the consumer, it's even easier: you just need to point to the version you're consuming. What exactly do you think is the problem?
- dezgeg 2y ago
  Bugs can and will happen, eg. when A depends on B and some developer accidentally makes a change to B that will pass B's tests but only break in A's use case. In monorepo case such bug can be noticed before the broken code hits master. In versioned case it might take long time (until B releases, and A takes the release into use). Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard (especially when you can no longer grep for them, unlike a monorepo) so some people get into defensive mode and never delete or fix any interfaces because "someone might still be using it".
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > Bugs can and will happen, eg. when A depends on B and some developer accidentally makes a change to B that will pass B's tests but only break in A's use case. In monorepo case such bug can be noticed before the broken code hits master. I don't see what point you tried to make. So A breaks when someone breaks B. That's ok. You spot the error the moment you try to update A, well before you commit any code. You file a low-priority ticket and go on with your life because A is still good in production. > Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard (...) Not really, it's the easiest part of the whole thing and a non-issue. If you manage a package this does not even register as a problem. If it's a service you have request metrics. What is the problem, really?
    - dezgeg 2y ago
      > I don't see what point you tried to make. So A breaks when someone breaks B. That's ok. You spot the error the moment you try to update A, well before you commit any code. You file a low-priority ticket and go on with your life because A is still good in production. What inevitably happens is that A hasn't been updating their version of B in weeks/months, but some recently landed bug fix in B is now needed RightAway(tm). And now if something accidental breakage happened between now and weeks/months ago, it'll be much more annoying to triage. > Not really, it's the easiest part of the whole thing and a non-issue. If you manage a package this does not even register as a problem. Well, where I'm at we have semi-regularly teams we have never heard of using our libraries. How can I know what things such people are using?
      - ggregoryarms 2y ago
        At least you're in control of when to look at the updates in new versions. A monorepo gives you less control. If you're unable to enforce control through other means, sure use a monorepo. But it's limiting.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    I guess I just don't see how this is any different from using external libraries. Yes, bumping a library from v3.2.4 to v3.2.5 can sometimes break your build. So, the solution is we stop using versioning? No, you just pin your app to v3.2.4 until a working update is made (either to the library or to your own app). I'm not sure why that suddenly becomes an impossible task once the creators of the app and the library work for the same parent company. > Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard That's the thing though - you don't have to care. If you delete an interface, just bump the version number accordingly. People who still need the interface will stay on the old version. (And - bonus - they are now placed under implicit pressure to refactor their code away from using that old interface, now that they know it's deprecated and will no longer be maintained. By contrast, if you have a practice of keeping code around code just because people are still using it, that code tends to just stick around forever.)
    - nuancebydefault 2y ago
      > external libraries External libraries have to be versioned because their code is not part of your monorepo. If the whole world would be pushing in the same monorepo, while not breaking any functionality, we would not need version numbers.
      - ggregoryarms 2y ago
        "If the whole world was a monorepo" is a great point made me laugh.
- chrisandchris 2y ago
  > c) when no one uses older versions, remove the code. [...] So, like never?
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  a) you do not break your contract That pretty much makes all internal APIs and code like Public APIs as a product, which adds a huge costs in terms of initial API designs, assumption validations, because you can't make any mistakes at all. And later down the road it fixes you into a place where if new requirements arise, and they will, you won't be able to pivot or refactor anything. Literally having this version setup and requirements changing I've seen estimates of what would be a week in a monorepo refactor either being estimated to take a year+ or simply impossible because of so many assumptions of those contracts. And there's such a nasty spaghetti of dependencies with different versions that no one can actually understand or hold in their head, and basically to build certain new features, they would have to start from scratch.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > That pretty much makes all internal APIs and code like Public APIs as a product (...) No. Different versions are not different products. They are the exact same product, provided in a way that delivers features in a way that won't break clients. > (...) adds a huge costs in terms of initial API designs (...) Obviously not. From the producer side, all it takes to support versioning is picking up your versioning strategy and sticking with it. This can mean providing an endpoint through a different path parameter, reading a request header, or even get the version through a query parameter. Does it take you much design work to add a "v1" in a URL path? How about reading a request header? Does passing a query parameter require meetings to review designs? Some frameworks even explicitly support versioning as a high-level concept and make it a part of their routing strategies. Copy the source file of a controller to another folder, change it's namespace to avoid conflicts, add a tag to the class, done. You just released a new version of your API. > (...) assumption validations, because you can't make any mistakes at all. You somehow managed to get it entirely backwards. With versioning, you can afford making all kinds of mistakes all the time. Breaking interfaces is no longer w concern. You release your changes to an upstream dependency/producer with zero use, downstream dependencies/consumers can gradually switch as their test plans allow, and if any problem is detected then this can be worked out before either consumers go live or producers receive production traffic. More importantly, you have your old stable versions ready to roll back.

chipdart 2y ago

> Versioning introduces a big maintenance cost, both on the side of the developer of a service and on the consumer side. Not really. From the producer side it only requires that a) you do not break your contract, b) when you need to break a contract, you bump your version number, c) when no one uses older versions, remove the code. From the consumer, it's even easier: you just need to point to the version you're consuming. What exactly do you think is the problem?

dezgeg 2y ago
Bugs can and will happen, eg. when A depends on B and some developer accidentally makes a change to B that will pass B's tests but only break in A's use case. In monorepo case such bug can be noticed before the broken code hits master. In versioned case it might take long time (until B releases, and A takes the release into use). Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard (especially when you can no longer grep for them, unlike a monorepo) so some people get into defensive mode and never delete or fix any interfaces because "someone might still be using it".
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Bugs can and will happen, eg. when A depends on B and some developer accidentally makes a change to B that will pass B's tests but only break in A's use case. In monorepo case such bug can be noticed before the broken code hits master. I don't see what point you tried to make. So A breaks when someone breaks B. That's ok. You spot the error the moment you try to update A, well before you commit any code. You file a low-priority ticket and go on with your life because A is still good in production. > Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard (...) Not really, it's the easiest part of the whole thing and a non-issue. If you manage a package this does not even register as a problem. If it's a service you have request metrics. What is the problem, really?
  - dezgeg 2y ago
    > I don't see what point you tried to make. So A breaks when someone breaks B. That's ok. You spot the error the moment you try to update A, well before you commit any code. You file a low-priority ticket and go on with your life because A is still good in production. What inevitably happens is that A hasn't been updating their version of B in weeks/months, but some recently landed bug fix in B is now needed RightAway(tm). And now if something accidental breakage happened between now and weeks/months ago, it'll be much more annoying to triage. > Not really, it's the easiest part of the whole thing and a non-issue. If you manage a package this does not even register as a problem. Well, where I'm at we have semi-regularly teams we have never heard of using our libraries. How can I know what things such people are using?
    - ggregoryarms 2y ago
      At least you're in control of when to look at the updates in new versions. A monorepo gives you less control. If you're unable to enforce control through other means, sure use a monorepo. But it's limiting.
- wavemode 2y ago
  I guess I just don't see how this is any different from using external libraries. Yes, bumping a library from v3.2.4 to v3.2.5 can sometimes break your build. So, the solution is we stop using versioning? No, you just pin your app to v3.2.4 until a working update is made (either to the library or to your own app). I'm not sure why that suddenly becomes an impossible task once the creators of the app and the library work for the same parent company. > Knowing when no one uses older versions is also hard That's the thing though - you don't have to care. If you delete an interface, just bump the version number accordingly. People who still need the interface will stay on the old version. (And - bonus - they are now placed under implicit pressure to refactor their code away from using that old interface, now that they know it's deprecated and will no longer be maintained. By contrast, if you have a practice of keeping code around code just because people are still using it, that code tends to just stick around forever.)
  - nuancebydefault 2y ago
    > external libraries External libraries have to be versioned because their code is not part of your monorepo. If the whole world would be pushing in the same monorepo, while not breaking any functionality, we would not need version numbers.
    - ggregoryarms 2y ago
      "If the whole world was a monorepo" is a great point made me laugh.
chrisandchris 2y ago
> c) when no one uses older versions, remove the code. [...] So, like never?
mewpmewp2 2y ago
a) you do not break your contract That pretty much makes all internal APIs and code like Public APIs as a product, which adds a huge costs in terms of initial API designs, assumption validations, because you can't make any mistakes at all. And later down the road it fixes you into a place where if new requirements arise, and they will, you won't be able to pivot or refactor anything. Literally having this version setup and requirements changing I've seen estimates of what would be a week in a monorepo refactor either being estimated to take a year+ or simply impossible because of so many assumptions of those contracts. And there's such a nasty spaghetti of dependencies with different versions that no one can actually understand or hold in their head, and basically to build certain new features, they would have to start from scratch.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > That pretty much makes all internal APIs and code like Public APIs as a product (...) No. Different versions are not different products. They are the exact same product, provided in a way that delivers features in a way that won't break clients. > (...) adds a huge costs in terms of initial API designs (...) Obviously not. From the producer side, all it takes to support versioning is picking up your versioning strategy and sticking with it. This can mean providing an endpoint through a different path parameter, reading a request header, or even get the version through a query parameter. Does it take you much design work to add a "v1" in a URL path? How about reading a request header? Does passing a query parameter require meetings to review designs? Some frameworks even explicitly support versioning as a high-level concept and make it a part of their routing strategies. Copy the source file of a controller to another folder, change it's namespace to avoid conflicts, add a tag to the class, done. You just released a new version of your API. > (...) assumption validations, because you can't make any mistakes at all. You somehow managed to get it entirely backwards. With versioning, you can afford making all kinds of mistakes all the time. Breaking interfaces is no longer w concern. You release your changes to an upstream dependency/producer with zero use, downstream dependencies/consumers can gradually switch as their test plans allow, and if any problem is detected then this can be worked out before either consumers go live or producers receive production traffic. More importantly, you have your old stable versions ready to roll back.