It’s been something like a year and half I’ve been CTO at Tessan. When I joined, I’ve found the same problems that plague engineering teams:
- lack of delivery practices
- ship branches instead of versions (using kind of gitflow - that was soooo scary)
- no testing but manual testing
- no metrics in production
- no cadence to deliver feature
- no way to enable a feature in production once mature
- manual deployments
As most company, Tessan is using a multi-repositories strategy. Like a vast majority of companies, this is just the situation that has been reached without much thoughts: start with a project, start a second, discover builds are complicated - split into 2nd repository,… rince again That’s where most companies are. No strategy, no thinking about what can be done to improve things or improve delivery.
I must confess, we are still using multiple-repositories. But things have been largely improved to gear towards a mono-repository.
What has been implemented is a gitops strategy:
- repositories have dedicated build and generates their own artifacts: Docker images or zip archive (we have part of our infrastructure that’s running on-premise in the field). Artifacts are archived and tracked using a git tag or branch name
- everything is deployed using Terraform with strict versionning. Targets are Kubernetes and on-premise infrastructure
- all deployments happens using GitHub actions within protected environments hence we are using the super expensive GitHub Enterprise just to only use protection rules (this badly hurts)
- we have more deployment pieces since splitting the big server-side monolith was a requirement to move faster across teams (yes, we went for micro-services using fbus)
Basically, this means we have more repositories than before 🤪. But we are in good shape to switch to mono-repository now. Everything is running quite smooth. So why move away from that model?
Well, feature development is a pain in the neck. Most of our development implies modifying several applications from front-end to back-end while changing database models from time to time. This is difficult for most devs to grasp:
- isolate from main branch (especially when several repositories are impacted) the time feature stabilizes
- understand impacts for testing
- understand impacts for a release to ensure smooth communication with support team
- do not miss something when deploying to test environment (we have micro-services again)
- get the correct merge period to lower impacts
From an operational point of view, there are also several things hard to track:
- reviews are complicated: usually this spans several repositories and it’s a hell to understand what’s going on
- tests are underestimated (due to incremental impacts)
- communication is impaired has several repositories have to be tracked
And from a dev perspective, it’s rather not good:
- no motivation for changes/refactoring across repositories
- lack of understanding how things keep working despite partially released (nullables, feature flags…)
- no opportunity to learn by reading more code
For at least one thing, I’m a strong advocate for mono-repository: atomic feature implementation.
But if you think going mono-repository is easy, you are totally wrong. Single app per repository (aka multiple-repositories) is easy to do: setup sources, build and generate artifact on changes. Done.
When using mono-repository, you will hit the wall for sure: time to build the applications and noise:
- Most of the time, there is no need to rebuild everything. We only need to rebuild and release what has changed. Shipping the whole platform is a non-sense.
- Noise is a clear problem has looking at history is not so funny. Hopefully, Meta has release a tool to understand what’s going on Sapling. I’ve not tested it, but maybe this can help inthe future. To be investigated.
So what to do ? Well, your mono-repo must have tools to ensure it’s fast, optimize the build and provide auditing features:
- identify what has changed (a new commit, a new branch)
- build only what has changed - and think about changes in libraries up to deployment
- delivery what has changed - generate a release note for changes
A mono-repository requires much more work to setup than multi-repositories. But benefits are tremendous.
I learned about mono-repository (or at least unified view of mult-repositories) at Criteo: that was the MOAB (Mother Of All Builds). When I left, I decided to create Full-Build to help D-Edge move faster engineering side. Full-Build is not much maintained (publicly speaking) but it lives under various names today (no more public). I’ve considered doing a public v2 as I’m not really satisfied with current state of affair.
Anyway, there are several tools on the market:
- Bazel (Google) / Buckbuild (Meta): probably the top offer to consider but requires dedicated teams - does not really fit the startup/mid-company. Lack reuse of existing project metadata
But as I’m saying, I’m not really satisfied. What I’m looking for:
- be explicit with projects declaration: no magic
- use most of metadata from projects (npm, .net projects, maven…) to get dependencies
- leverage eco-systems instead of relying on plugins
- ensure strong projects isolation - all paths must be relative to project, not workspace
- support for explicit tasks
All in all, I think I will go for full-build v2 😃 I just need a tool that is no brainer and definitively open-source.