What are the most important considerations when choosing between a monorepo and multirepo codebase?

A monorepo is like a big box where a company keeps all its different software projects instead of separate boxes for each. It's like having one giant folder with many smaller folders inside for all the different parts of their code. This helps teams work together more easily because everything's in one place, making it simpler to share and update code.

Choosing between a monorepo and multirepo depends on factors like codebase size, collaboration needs, and build times. Monorepos suit large, interdependent projects, streamlining dependency management and enabling unified releases. They foster collaboration but may face scaling challenges. Multirepos are apt for smaller projects with clear separations, allowing independent releases but posing challenges in dependency and collaboration. Consider team structure, tooling, and deployment preferences when making this decision. Hybrid approaches, combining monorepo and multirepo elements, can also be viable

Imagine a monorepo like a giant pizza with ALL your favorite toppings on it – pepperoni, mushrooms, extra cheese – everything in one delicious slice! It's like having a huge backpack where you stuff everything you need for the day.

A monorepo, short for monolithic repository, is a version control system where all the source code for multiple projects or components is stored in a single repository. This approach allows for centralized management of code and shared dependencies, promoting easier collaboration and code reuse

An monorepo is one which holds all of the materials and projects in an organization's codebase. By implementing a centralized method, you can access and modify any section of the codebase faster, improving cooperation across teams. Monorepos are well known for being used by tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.

In a multirepo setup, it's like each software project has its own separate box or folder. Companies keep different projects in their own separate places, like organizing books in different bookshelves. Each project has its own space, making it easier to manage individual projects but sometimes harder to share and coordinate code between them.

A multirepo, or multi-repository, structure involves storing each project or component in a separate repository. Each repository operates independently, allowing for more isolated development and versioning of individual projects

multirepo is where the codebase is separated into several repositories, each devoted to a particular component, such as a feature, module, or service. By decentralizing, distinct code segments can be managed independently and isolated, which means changes to one section won't affect the entire codebase. Businesses like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon use multirepo structures to manage sophisticated systems with lots of components.

Now, picture multirepo as having different lunchboxes for each part of your meal – one for sandwiches, one for fruits, and another for cookies. Each lunchbox has its own style, but they're not all in the same bag.

A multirepo, or multiple repositories, is an approach where each project or service is stored in its own independent version control repository. Each repository contains the codebase for a specific component, application, or service, providing isolation between projects.

A monorepo helps understand the solution's dependency management, but in order to maintain and scale a monorepo is important to have the right tooling in place (e.g. bazel, Nx, rush).

If a company is working on several different projects that are not closely related, using a multirepo approach can be more effective. Multirepo allows diverse teams to manage their own schedules, use the tools and programming languages that best fit their project, and make changes without worrying about affecting the other team's work.

Pros: Simplified dependency management, unified versioning, and streamlined collaboration. Cons: Potential for increased complexity, longer build times, and challenges in managing large-scale projects.

Pros: Share Easily: Makes it easy to share and reuse code. Consistency Matters: Everyone works with the same tools and versions. Changes Together: Changes you make affect all parts of the project. Build & Deploy Simply: Easier to build and deploy everything at once. Cons: Big & Slow Sometimes: Can be slow to download and build because it's a big package. A Bit Complicated: Can be a bit tricky to manage because it's all in one place. Keep an Eye on Security: Need to be careful with who can access what. Coordinate Versions: Need to make sure different parts work well together.

Pros - Monorepos are great for reusing code, managing dependencies faster, and streamline procedures like code reviews and testing. It simplifies large-scale refactoring and ensures consistency between project components with a single, unified view. Cons - Monorepos are complex and large, so they're hard to manage. Scaling problems and less autonomy may arise. Centralization also increases the risk of widespread damage. Cloning and pulling can be time consuming in a big monorepo. Code quality is often maintained by strict rules and standards, which means that any major change requires careful deployment planning.

Pros: Isolation: Each project has its own repository, providing clear isolation and independence. Scalability: Better scalability as repositories can be managed independently, reducing build and deployment bottlenecks. Team Autonomy: Teams have greater autonomy and can choose tools and workflows that suit their specific project. Cons: Dependency Management: Managing dependencies between projects can be more challenging. Global Refactoring: Performing global refactoring or enforcing consistent coding standards across repositories can be complex. Cross-Project Coordination: Coordinating changes that span multiple repositories may require additional effort.

Pros: Improved project isolation, flexibility in choosing version control systems per project. Cons: Challenges in managing shared dependencies, potential for inconsistency in versioning, and increased overhead in cross-repository collaboration.

Pros - Promotes autonomous development and modularity, allows focused scaling and customized tools for every repository, reduces the possibility of modifications having a large scale -ve impact, and speeds up deployment. Cons - Difficult to manage dependencies across a bunch of repo’s, may result in inconsistent and redundant code, requires more coordination across repositories, and may make it hard to integrate holistically.

Multirepo is like having separate lunchboxes – organized and specific. Each box has its goodies. But hey, juggling multiple lunchboxes can be tricky, and sometimes you forget which box has the dessert!

Consider project scale: Monorepos are beneficial for large-scale projects with shared components, while smaller projects may find multirepos more suitable. Evaluate team collaboration: Monorepos encourage collaboration, whereas multirepos provide more autonomy to individual teams. Assess build and deployment requirements: Monorepos can simplify continuous integration, while multirepos offer flexibility in deploying independent components.

To choose we must consider factors like project size, team collaboration, build and deployment, tool compatibility, developer culture, maintenance, and scalability when choosing between a monorepo and a multirepo. It's vital to experiment to figure out which approach fits your project's unique needs. Monorepos are good for smaller projects with collaborative teams, while multirepos are good for bigger, complex projects with autonomous teams. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish and your budget.

It is typically easier to convert a mono repo solution into a multi-repo solution than it is to convert a multi-repo solution into a mono repo solution within an enterprise setting. This is because an organization will typically mimic its structure according to the solution's architecture. When repositories are separate, the teams contributing to them are often separate teams as well. The number of repositories involved, the separation of concerns, code quality, and the build and deployment processes may be different across a multirepo project, making the transition from this approach to a monorepo approach complex. I recommend choosing a mono-repo approach to start and evolve the approach as needed.

Think of it like choosing between living in a bustling shared house or having your own cozy apartment. If you've got a small team with specific projects, the cozy apartments (multirepo) might work. But if you're a big gang working on various things and love sharing resources, that giant mansion (monorepo) might be more fun.

Acredito que essa escolha vá depender de aspectos como: o escopo da aplicação, a complexidade e até mesmo a quantidade de times de desenvolvimento envolvidos.

Using microservices seems to be trending recently. With microservices multi-repo seems a better decision as each service can have its own repository. Dependencies is not an issue here as microservicea are separable.

Monorepo is not just codebase relocation, the projects within the monorepo must have well-defined relationships, allowing independent release of the components residing in the repository. Also, a monorepo will impact directly the deployment strategy (e.g. it might be needed to change from a rolling update to a blue-green strategy)

Tooling and infrastructure: Evaluate the available tools and infrastructure support for your chosen repository structure. Development workflow: Consider the preferred development workflow of your team and how it aligns with the chosen repository structure. Migration considerations: If transitioning from one structure to another, plan for a smooth migration to avoid disruptions in development processes.

Tapis workflows integrate their service source code into monorepo, which is more favorable than polyrepo. 1. This unified code base facilitates comprehensive testing of services (unit, functional, and integration testing) and demonstrates cohesion through shared utilities and API gateways. 2. monorepo simplifies CI/CD (which is a common use case for Tapis workflows) and improves operational efficiency by using container images for each service in a unified deployment. Reference: Freeman, Nathan, et al. "Detailed Functional Overview of an API and Workflow Engine for Scientific Research Computing." Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing. 2023. 10-17.