The Shift from Polyrepos to Monorepos

The Shift from Polyrepos to Monorepos

As code repositories become more complex, challenges become more apparent. The shift from polyrepos to monorepos help overcome & make these more manageable.

As code repositories have become more complex to reflect the nature of the intricate microservices architecture that they support⁠—and teams have started using multiple repos to manage different projects—challenges have started to appear in their management.

For starters, it is not always possible to maintain coding best practices in code repos when multiple projects are structured differently. There are also bottlenecks in packaging and deploying codes from multiple repositories.

Organizations are starting to transition from polyrepos to monorepos as a way to bring complex structure back to a manageable level. Having multiple codebases for web and mobile applications alone can be quite complex. Is shifting from polyrepos to monorepos really the answer? How can such transition be done smoothly?

The Logic Behind Polyrepos

The simple reason behind keeping services, modules, and libraries in separate repositories is actually very easy to understand. You are dealing with different components, and many of them – while may be interchangeable or used by multiple frontend components – are developed by different teams. Keeping them in separate repositories keeps things tidy.

However, problems start to occur when you try to integrate components from multiple repositories as the development cycle comes to its conclusion. A change in UI element, for example, can have a significant effect in how the entire app functions, and keeping track of that specific change is not easy when there are multiple codebases to track.

Other issues are starting to become more common too. The overhead needed to maintain multiple repositories can be huge when the project is not managed for efficiency. A set of services may require the same modules and dependencies, and each repo needs to configure those dependencies separately for the development to work.

Slowdowns become quite common. Simple tasks such as fixing bugs require thorough assessment, and the process itself becomes incredibly slow at times. Even with microservices in multiple repos linked correctly, it is still not always possible to assess the effects of a major change to the rest of the app.

The biggest concern with polyrepos is the complexity involved in tracking revisions and package updates. You cannot pinpoint which particular revision solves a specific bug, which means rollbacks and annotations are unnecessary complex too. These small difficulties add up, and they result in polyrepos becoming unsuitable for some organizations.

To make matters worse, teams with their own repositories don’t always use standardized tools and frameworks. Each team could have their own preferred tools, and they often introduce unnecessary differences in cofigurations; when I say differences, I mean variations that still require adjustments by the time you have to integrate microservices and push updates.

The Mono Approach

Centralizing the entire development project using a single repository, the monorepo approach, makes sense when the complexities mentioned earlier starts to affect your development cycle. You cannot just combine everything and be done with it though. Some adjustments are still needed before the monorepo can be effective for the whole team.

There are several tools designed to make managing projects with multiple packages easy. Lerna, for instance, works really well for projects that rely on JavaScript. Yarn Workspaces can be used to manage npm packages.

Simplifying component sharing is another thing that needs to be done when transitioning to a monorepo. Fortunately, you have tools like Bit helping you with the process. Bit in particular automates this step by immediately isolating components and their dependencies. When changes are made to one component, Bit makes sure that its dependents are updated too.

The three tools can be used in tandem. Bit + Lerna + Yarn Workspaces are notoriously reliable. Lerna can manage larger packages, while Bit takes care of the small components. Overhead is kept at a minimum when components and resources are shared between multiple packages. Yarn Workspaces, on the other hand, optimizes workflows and ties everything together.

blog code resources bit ci/cd pipeline code development environments lerna monolithic source code repositories monorepo polyrepo yarnl

Bootstrap 5 Complete Course with Examples

Bootstrap 5 Tutorial - Bootstrap 5 Crash Course for Beginners

Nest.JS Tutorial for Beginners

Hello Vue 3: A First Look at Vue 3 and the Composition API

Building a simple Applications with Vue 3

Deno Crash Course: Explore Deno and Create a full REST API with Deno

How to Build a Real-time Chat App with Deno and WebSockets

Convert HTML to Markdown Online

HTML entity encoder decoder Online

Serverless CI/CD on the AWS Cloud

To set up a serverless CI/CD pipeline in your AWS environments, there are several key services that you need to use. Find out more here.

How Can I Find the Best Uber Like App Source Code?

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Uber like app source code empowers you to create a taxi-booking app depending on your business requirements. It facilitates you to incorporate the essential features along with the innovative/advanced features...

How To Create a Developer Blog on DevDojo

Nowadays, creating a blog is easy. But, with all the different options available, you might go crazy by just doing the research. Your Dev Blog will have a default subdomain ``, and you may choose to add a custom domain as well.

The Shift from Polyrepos to Monorepos

Is shifting from polyrepos to monorepos really the answer? How can such transition be done smoothly?

Appsinvo : What is CI & CD in Product Development?

In the last few years, technology has grown very much and reached some unprecedented levels. Similarly, the same can also be said for software development, it forms a significant part of the technology department.