Monorepo?

[Atila Neves]

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.

> 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.