In general I agree, because it allows gradual migration of users... but in essentially every case I've seen, removing versioned interfaces is billed as the primary feature of monorepos.
I just realized monorepos are analogous to a flat network, everything can reach everything else, or that main memory is flat/linear/same cost for each read/write (not true, but it is the abstraction we believe).
I now believe that monorepos can only work well when there is a mechanical tool for ensuring correctness and that refactorings can be done atomically across the whole tree. Infact, it might be necessary to _only_ commit the refactoring operation to the tree and the source itself. That the whole tree is a blockchain of tree edit operations.
> monorepos can only work well when there is a mechanical tool for ensuring correctness and that refactorings can be done atomically across the whole tree
Isn't a compiler such a tool? I use a statically typed language, and if I would try to do this:
which is one of the reasons I like microrepos and versioning: you can do refactorings across subtrees. if there's an edge case you want to address later, you can address it later. if you eschew versioning entirely, you effectively have no choice but to do everything all-or-nothing.
I now believe that monorepos can only work well when there is a mechanical tool for ensuring correctness and that refactorings can be done atomically across the whole tree. Infact, it might be necessary to _only_ commit the refactoring operation to the tree and the source itself. That the whole tree is a blockchain of tree edit operations.