Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I don’t think CI/CD should really be a big worry as far as mono-repositories go as you can setup different pipelines and different flows with different configurations. Something you’re probably already doing if you have multiple repos.

In my experience the article is right when it tells you there isn’t that big of a difference. We have all sorts of repositories, some of which are basically mono-repositories for their business domain. We tend to separate where it “makes sense” which for us means that it’s when what we put into repositories is completely separate from everything else. We used to have a lot of micro-repositories and it wasn’t that different to be honest. We grouped more of them together to make it easier for us to be DORA compliant in terms of the bureaucracy it adds to your documentation burden. Technically I hardly notice.

In my limited-but-not-nothing experience working with mono vs multi repo of the same projects, CI/CD definitely was one of the harder pieces to solve. Its highly dependent on your frameworks and CI provider on just how straightforward it is going to be, and most of them are "not very straightforward".

The basic way most work is to run full CI on every change. This quickly becomes a huge speedbump to deployment velocity until a solution for "only run what is affected" is found.

loading story #42066299
loading story #42066138