I feel terrible for anyone who sees this and thinks, “ah! I should move to a monorepo!” I’ve seen it several times, and the thing they all seem to overlook is that Google has THOUSANDS of hours of effort put into the tooling for their monorepo. Slapping lots of projects into a single git repo without investing in tooling will not be a pleasant experience.

I sense that Google invests much more in it's infrastructure then most companies make in revenue.

I've worked with monorepos, and I'd be loathe to recommend it as well; the combination of culture shift and tooling it takes to keep a monorepo system running makes most CD processes you see today look like child's play.

There is a lot of very good free software that supports most of the open source approach to CD these days; but very, very little freely available monorepo tooling. Just check out https://github.com/korfuri/awesome-monorepo - it's a quick read. I haven't found many other notably superior compilations. Compared with available OSS workflows and tooling, it's rather sparse, filled with bespoke approaches everywhere.

ryancox

Agreed about the lack of monorepo tooling. There's just not that much out there. A couple of other links I didn't see in the awesome-monorepo:

- https://github.com/facebookexperimental/mononoke - I hear this is a real thing and not a science fair project

- https://github.com/bors-ng/bors-ng - Needed in a monorepo to handle high arrival rate of commits / merges