Monorepo?

[max haughton]

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 00:18:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 10:24:36 UTC, Mathias LANG 
> wrote:
>> What we will mostly loose by having a monorepo is a visible 
>> interface between core language and standard library. The 
>> interface will be less apparent, and easier to break.
>
> Although the original question was about Phobos, the scope 
> doesn't stop there.  Don't forget there's also dlang/tools, 
> dlang/installer, dlang/dlang.org, dlang/dub, and 
> dlang/downloads.dlang.org.  There would be absolutely zero 
> point or gain in merging dlang/phobos into dlang/dmd unless 
> everything else goes in too.

The spec probably could be in the with the implementation. 
They're modified in lockstep only with the barrier of an 
additional PR being required for the spec.

I also think it's hyperbolic to claim there is "zero" utility to 
it regardless of how you are calculating it.