[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?

[Justin Lebar via llvm-dev]

I don't feel strongly about the directory structure; I'll leave it to
those who do to argue that point.

But can we separate out the idea of a monolithic repository from the
particulars of its directory structure?  It sounds from your latest
e-mail that what you're actually opposed to is the nested directory
structure in a monolithic repo, not the monorepo itself.  In which
case, we have more in common than not.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
<dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-Jul-25, at 20:31, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be interested in hearing via the survey which path (separate repos vs. monolithic) causes the most workflow disruption.
>>
>> As phrased this is begging the question.
>>
>> The question is, what choice is best?  One dimension of "best"
>> certainly is "minimizes workflow disruption."  But that's not the only
>> one, nor even (necessarily) the most important one.  Certainly we
>> don't have to send out a survey to conclude that the non-monolithic
>> repository would change workflows the least.  :)
>
> There are two different questions.  First, what's the end goal?  Second, how should we get there?  Workflow disruption should be a key consideration for the latter.
>
> There seemed to be an assumption in Richard's post (perhaps, a reading he didn't intend) that a nested, monolithic git repo was a small, incremental step; a stepping stone toward a flatter structure.  I disagree.