This thread is reminding me of a prior one about complexity merchants. I am seeing a lot of sentiment that there is somehow a technical sacrifice by moving to a monorepo.
This is absolutely ludicrous unless you fail to grasp the power of a hierarchical file system. I don't see how a big mess like CI/CD is made easier by spreading it out to more points of configuration.
To me the whole point of a monorepo is atomic commits for the whole org. The power of this is really hard to overstate when you are trying to orchestrate the efforts of lots of developers - contrary to many claims. Rebasing in one repo and having one big meeting is a hell of a lot easier than doing it N times.
Even if the people on the team hate each other and refuse to directly collaborate. I still don't see the reason to not monorepo. In this scenario, the monorepo becomes a useful management and HR tool.
This is absolutely ludicrous unless you fail to grasp the power of a hierarchical file system. I don't see how a big mess like CI/CD is made easier by spreading it out to more points of configuration.
To me the whole point of a monorepo is atomic commits for the whole org. The power of this is really hard to overstate when you are trying to orchestrate the efforts of lots of developers - contrary to many claims. Rebasing in one repo and having one big meeting is a hell of a lot easier than doing it N times.
Even if the people on the team hate each other and refuse to directly collaborate. I still don't see the reason to not monorepo. In this scenario, the monorepo becomes a useful management and HR tool.