I just finished watching Why Google Stores Billions of Lines of Code in a Single Repository and honestly, while it looks intriguing, it also looks horrible.

Have you run into issues? Did you love it? How was it/

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
14 points
*

We use them at Meta. It’s easier to interact with other parts of the codebase, but it doesn’t play well with libraries so you end up redoing a lot of stuff in-house.

I would only recommend a monorepo if you’re a company with at least 5,000+ engineers and can dedicate significant time to internal infra.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

I would only recommend a monorepo if you’re a company with at least 5,000+ engineers and can dedicate significant time to internal infra.

It’s funny because at least one FANG does not use monorepos and has no problem with them, in spite of being at the same scale or even perhaps larger than Facebook.

I wonder why anyone would feel compelled to suggest adopting a monorepo in a setting that makes them far harder to use and maintain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Is it Amazon because they did a really good job at keeping teams separate (via APIs)?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t think they did an exceptional job keeping teams separated. In fact, I think monorepos only end up artificially tying teams down with an arbitrary and completely unnecessary constraint.

Also, not all work is services.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

it doesn’t play well with libraries

What do you mean by that? Is it the versioning of libraries that isn’t possible meaning an update to the interface requires updating all dependent apps/libs?

Anti Commercial-AI license

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Updating a library in a monorepo means copying it all over and hoping the lib update didn’t break someone else’s code. Whereas updating a library normally would never break anything, and you can let people update on their own cadence

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I set up a monorepo that had a library used by several different projects. It was my first foray into DevOps and we had this problem.

I decided to version and release the library whenever a change was merged to it on the trunk. Other projects would depend on one of those versions and could be updated at their own pace. There was a lot of hidden complexity and many gotchas so we needed some rules to make it functional. It worked good once those were sorted out.

One rule we needed was that changes to the library had to be merged and released prior to any downstream project that relied on those changes. This made a lot of sense from certain perspectives but it was annoying developers. They couldn’t simply open a single PR containing both changes. This had a huge positive impact on the codebase over time IMO but that’s a different story.

How is it done at Meta? Always compile and depend on latest? Is the library copied into different projects, or did you just mean you had to update several projects whenever the library’s interfaces changed?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programming

!programming@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



Community stats

  • 3.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 890

    Posts

  • 7.7K

    Comments