Monorepo?

[John Colvin]

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 02:27:42 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 3:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 01:57:43 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
>> Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> 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!
>> 
>> What practical problem would moving the GC out of the DMD repo 
>> solve?
>
> Not just the GC, almost all of the druntime shouldn't be in 
> there.
>
> There are three things directly tied to the compiler that do 
> need to be in there:
>
> 1. Attributes
> 2. Intrinsics (*sigh* atomics not picking that battle with dmd 
> right now)
> 3. Hooks, must be templated (has its own benefits in 
> simplifying the compiler quite significantly)
>
> Everything else is library code like bindings which super 
> doesn't need a compiler developer to look at them. And that is 
> the point, its different groups that should be maintaining it, 
> merging it will not encourage it, it will only mean people step 
> on each others toes more.

In what way would they step on each others toes (more than they 
do separately)? A single repo solves a real problem, which is all 
the PITA caused when doing cross-cutting changes and an overly 
complex developer experience full of silly pitfalls and careful 
juggling (oh, right, I need to git pull on the other repo as 
well, maybe? Which dmd is this building with again? Oh damn I 
forgot to switch branches in 3 places at once). Putting aside 
status quo bias, any separation should also solve something 
comparable.