Mono Repository vs. Individual Repositories: Weighing Code Organization Strategies

Introduction

The organization of repositories in software development can have a significant impact on collaboration, code sharing, and overall project efficiency. In this article, we'll delve into the considerations surrounding two prominent repository strategies: the mono repository and the individual repository approach. We'll examine the advantages and disadvantages of each method, exploring the factors that guided our choice to embrace a mono repository for a team.

P.S: The project uses Azure functions heavily

Mono Repository: Unified and Efficient

A mono repository strategy involves housing all backend functions, infrastructure, and associated components within a single repository. Below, we assess the merits and potential drawbacks of this approach:

PROS:

1. Unified Management: By consolidating all backend functions and infrastructure, a mono repository enables streamlined management and easy sharing of resources such as Application Insights and Key Vault.

2. Cross-Functional Changes: Implementing changes across multiple functions becomes more straightforward through a unified pull request. This facilitates tasks like upgrading runtimes, managing common files, and introducing shared tools.

3. Resource Reusability: The mono repository encourages the reuse of essential files, including .gitignore configurations and GitHub workflows. This reduces redundancy and fosters a consistent development environment.

4. Centralized Workflow: In projects using GitHub for task planning, having all issues within a single repository can enhance project coordination and tracking.

5. Simplified Local Development: Developers can efficiently run all function apps locally by cloning a single repository. This accelerates the development cycle.

6. Local Library Experimentation: The mono repository setup allows teams to explore the innovative practice of reusing local libraries across functions.

CONS:

1. User Access Complexity: The granularity of restricting users' access on a per-repository basis diminishes when transitioning to a mono repository structure.

2. Deployment Challenges: Initial deployments of both infrastructure and functions as a single entity may introduce complexities that require careful management.

3. Transition Implications: Existing pull requests may necessitate rebasing or synchronization with the move to a mono repository.

4. Change Impact: Renaming the repository and adjusting access permissions could disrupt established workflows.

Individual Repositories: Granular Control

In contrast, the individual repository strategy maintains a separate repository for each backend function. Here, we assess the advantages and potential downsides of this approach:

PROS:

1. Continuity: Adopting individual repositories preserves the existing repository structure, allowing for a seamless transition without immediate changes.

2. User Access Control: Maintaining separate repositories ensures precise control over user permissions on a per-function basis.

CONS:

1. Infrastructure Isolation: Deploying shared infrastructure using tools like Terraform becomes more intricate, potentially leading to inefficiencies.

2. Code and Pipeline Fragmentation: Sharing code and pipelines across multiple repositories becomes challenging, affecting collaboration and development speed.

3. Debugging Complexity: Debugging multiple functions concurrently requires managing and cloning multiple repositories, potentially elongating the development process.

Making a Decision: Embracing the Mono Repository

After a thorough assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies, the team opted to adopt the mono repository model for the backend development. The decision reflects a commitment to enhancing code sharing, simplifying cross-functional changes, and centralizing task planning.

Conclusion

Selecting between a mono repository and individual repositories entails critical considerations that shape development workflows, collaboration dynamics, and code reuse practices. By closely analyzing the pros and cons of each approach, development teams can make well-informed decisions aligned with their project's goals and the team's collaborative ethos. In this case, the choice to transition to a mono repository underscores the team's dedication to boosting code reuse, streamlining cross-functional changes, and fostering a unified project management strategy. As software development practices evolve, these choices will continue to influence how teams collaborate and deliver innovative solutions.