[pavlov]

Meta also has a massive monorepo accessed primarily through cloud devservers.

When several of the world’s most successful software companies use this approach, it’s hard to argue that it’s inherently bad. Of course it’s sensible to discuss what lessons apply to smaller companies who don’t have the luxury of dedicated tooling teams supporting the monorepo and dev environment.

[n_ary]

Just because some successful companies use some approach doesn't make it the best practice. I have seen firsthand nuisance of monorepo, which took almost 15minutes to correctly switch branches on intel machines(and decently spiked the CPU by causing windows defender to panic). It has decent benefit of easy code sharing, but build and test are soul sucking experiences and if someone decides to run some updated formatter and linter rule accidentally, the whole MR becomes a nightmare to correctly review(once had a 2k+ changes and had to request to rollback and then only commit what they actually wanted to change).

[tail_exchange]

> took almost 15minutes to correctly switch branches on intel machines

This can probably be fixed with trivial tuning. Just configuring Git to fetch only your branches would speed up the branch switching significantly.

> build and test are soul sucking experiences

Why? It doesn't have to be. If you are going to build the entire monorepo, then yes, but this should only happen when you are running CI, and even then you can break down the builds into smaller components.

> the whole MR becomes a nightmare to correctly review

Not if you set up code ownership properly. You also need to think what happens in case of emergencies, so having a selected list of "super users" and users with permissions to bypass reviews is important.

It sounds like this company wanted a monorepo, but nobody invested any money or time to actually think about developer productivity. When this happens, yes, of course it won't be good, because no project succeeds like this. The nice thing about a monorepo is that instead of 1,000 repos with tooling all over the place and no specialist to take care of them, you can have one repo with really good tooling and a team dedicated to just keep it running smoothly. But if nobody is actually taking care of the monorepo, it will rot just like any other codebase.

[riwsky]

“Someone autoformatted the whole thing under new settings at the same time as introducing a new feature” is hardly a monorepo problem. That could be a pain in the ass to review even in a single file. But the flip-side, of someone cleanly wanting to a do a mass autoformat or autorefactor, is much easier in a monorepo than in split repos.

[aidos]

Why would you feel obliged to accept a MR in which someone has accidentally changed large amounts of code?

[kccqzy]

Nothing you describe is inherent to monorepos. Git is slow yes but go use hg. Build and test are slow? That's a CI problem: you didn't allocate enough resources to the build system. Someone ran a formatter accidentally? That's that someone's mistake.

[mootoday]

Meta also uses React and we know what mess that introduced to the world...