|
|
|
|
|
by pojzon
1456 days ago
|
|
Sounds good, doesnt work. One place change == X possible conflicts. Ten places over longer period of time (a lot bigger PR) == XXX possible conflicts. All depends on the size of the team and project. Tho its hard to find a good place to switch from one approach to the other one. |
|
I do not understand your point about conflicts as 3 commits across 3 projects with 3 different CI pathways is going to cause more conflicts than 1 commit across 1 repo. In my experience managing one code change or project across 3 repos is a 10X difficulty increaser in terms of repo management, conflicts, etc. It's not just 3X harder, it's 10X harder to me. The number of times I've seen a spelling mistake/naming difference/etc in 1 out of 3 repos because the PRs were done separately and no one noticed is too damn high.
The simplicity of having it all together strongly outweighs the benefits of multi repo in most situations IMO. The number of projects/companies/etc that would benefit from some highly engineered microservice-based multi-repo monster is probably less than 100 in my country, and 1000 worldwide.