So I’ve been doing a lot of DevOps work recently, and one of the bigger topic of discussions I’ve been a part of recently is this idea of Mono-Repo vs Poly-Repo. And I thought I would way in with some of my thoughts on this.
So first and foremost, let’s talk about what the difference is. Mono-Repo vs Poly-Repo, actually refers to how you store your source control. Now I don’t care if you are using Azure Dev Ops, GitHub, BitBucket, or any other solution. The idea here is whether you put the entirety of your source code in a single repo, or if you split it up into multiple repositories.
Now this doesn’t sound like a big deal, or might not make sense depending on the type of development code, but this also ties into the idea of Microservices. If you think about a micro-services, and the nature of them, then the debate about repos becomes apparent.
This can be a hot-debated statement, but most modern application development involves distributed solutions and architectures with Micro-services, whether you are deploying to a server-less environment, or even to Kubernetes, most modern applications involve a lot of completely separate micro-services that provide the total functionality.
And this is where the debate comes into play, the idea that let’s say your application is actually made of a series of smaller micro service containers that are being used to completely overall functionality. Then how do you store them in source control. Does each service get it’s own repository or do you have one repository with all your services in folders.
When we look at Mono-Repo, it’s not without benefits:
- Easier to interact with
- Easier to handle changes that cut across multiple services
- Pull Requests are all localized
But it isn’t without it’s downsides:
- Harder to control from a security perspective
- Makes it easier to inject bad practices
- Can make versioning much more difficult
And really in a lot of ways Poly-Repo can really read like the opposite of what’s above.
For me, I prefer poly-repo, and I’ll tell you why. Ultimately it can create some more overhead, but I find it leads to better isolation and enforcement of good development practices. But making each repo responsible for containing a single service and all of it’s components it makes for a much cleaner development experience and makes it much easier to maintain that isolation and avoid letting bad practices slip in.
Now I do believe is making repos for single purposes, and that includes things like a templates repo for deployment components and GitOps pieces. But I like the idea that to make a change to a service the workflow is:
- Clone the Services Repo
- Make changes
- Test changes
- PR changes
- PR kicks off automated deployment
It helps to keep each of these services as independently deplorable in this model which is ultimately where you want to be as opposed to building multiple services at once.
Top comments (0)