[randomdata]

The monorepo seems like a bit of a red herring. A fork maintained in a separate repository (like pressing the fork button GitHub) would achieve the same. In fact, the type aliasing feature was added because Google (and others) struggled to make modifications in single commit, so the atomicity the monorepo could theoretically provide has already proven to not be there in practice.

The main difference is that Google is comfortable with having a fork that they can update from the mainline branch when needed/desired, but will otherwise stay stable for their software. Others, who are familiar with more traditional package tools, are not. And perhaps their concern is justified, but interestingly I've never seen a Go experience report reporting why that approach failed them.

[taeric]

I took that to mean that most of the major "sanctioned" programs in go, do all of the heavy lifting "in repo."

Which is funny, because it is easy/natural to view dependencies as technical debt. You are literally building against someone else's technical assets. In that sense, most dependencies you have are easily argued to be technical debt. If you have the capital of google, why do that? (For the rest of us, the answer is easy, we don't have that kind of capital and have to.)