undefined | Better HN

0 pointsserverholic6y ago0 comments

Well for one you can commit to multiple projects in a single PR. Makes coordinating changes across projects much easier.

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

dehrmann6y ago· 4 in thread

It gives you that illusion; it doesn't solve versioning and deployment orders, and I'd argue that that's the harder part of changes across projects. Polyrepos make messy things...messy.

ecnahc5156y ago

Deployment ordering at large scale is avoided and usually done by not making breaking changes. 4 phase migrations, always. Roll out new API, update existing software to use new API, wait for everything to stop using old API + backfill, remove old API.

erik_seaberg6y ago

I agree that gradual adoption of new APIs is the way to go, but once you're doing that you no longer need an atomic commit across all projects.

dehrmann6y ago

You actually never want an atomic commit for that class of changes across projects because HEAD should always be deployable to all services. It's obviously messier at FAANG-scale, but with even 25 devs, not properly staging API-breaking changes leads to a lot of "only deploy commits before xxxx to service foo."

weberc26y ago

It pretty much does solve the versioning issue. “Latest, always”. The downside is the abysmal state of monorepo build tools. With multirepos, who updates the downstream repos’ dependency files (e.g., requirements.txt) when an upstream project releases a change? And is the policy “latest, always” or do you support N versions of every package? I would argue that the latter is insane at any scale, and the former leaves you dealing with dependencies manually (someone is updating the downstream repos’ dependency files when an upstream change is released) or you build automation that does it and you’re well on your way to implementing your own monorepo-like build tool.

Everything is hard, unfortunately.

taeric6y ago· 2 in thread

Oddly, this is also one of the bad sides. Committing to two projects, by necessity, means deploying to two workflows. If not more.

Doing that in one repo makes the commit part easier, but hides the complexity of deploying separately. Or to other places.

Not that two repos makes it easy. Just gives a much earlier signal to where it happens.

serverholicOP6y ago

Or you can have a single workflow that includes all the projects in the repo. I found it's actually easier to do things like wait for project A to deploy before project B.

ivanbakel6y ago

Only if the safe deployment order is always the same. In any typical server-client deployment, breaking changes can go in either direction, and which one you can deploy first requires some thought. I've seen 3- or 4-stage deployments for some back-and-forth changes.

In my experience, you're required to break changes up into safe individual deployments anyways, so the monorepo doesn't add any benefit in that sense.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse