Monorepo?

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 14/02/2023 12:58 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 00:40:44 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
> Cattermole wrote:
>> On 07/02/2023 11:15 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> What special rule? If a dmd change breaks Phobos, doesn't it make 
>>> more sense to fix Phobos in the same PR than submitting a separate PR 
>>> to the Phobos repo (and having to explain that it's because of dmd PR 
>>> #12345)?
>>
>> If a Phobos change breaks MIR, doesn't it make more sense to fix MIR 
>> in the same PR than submitting a separate PR to the MIR repo (and 
>> having to explain that its because of a Phobos PR #12345)?
> 
> I don't understand how this analogy applies unless you're advocating for 
> a monorepo with all dub packages, which I doubt is the case.

My point is that the arguments being made for it, are easily applied to 
other projects than just Phobos.

>> We can apply this same logic to literally any code base that is in the 
>> auto tester. The dmd repository is going to get quite big when we keep 
>> including what should be isolated code bases administratively...
> 
> I don't think we can, because I'm asking about putting code that's under 
> control by the same group of people in the same repository and I don't 
> see how that applies to private individual projects.

It shouldn't be the same group!

Its a vastly different skill set to develop a compiler than it is to 
develop a standard library.

Same goes for things like GC's, it is its own specialty. We should be 
moving things out of dmd's repository, not moving them in!