Hacker News Reader

Yeah, git-repo-per-project was an unspoken assumption. Also, "upstream and downstream" may not suffice analytically, as many interdependencies in this model do not satisfy DAG, even if they ~should~. Agile projects aren't often built so much as grown.

View on HN

I think the problem you're assuming here is that dependencies are automatically updated to use the latest version. That sounds like pretty strong coupling in a way that means other problems are lurking somewhere.

Team A should be able to develop without having to consult Team B constantly. That means you have to be mature about deprecating things before you just remove them, but I think that's what the whole article is about.

Yes, there are all the usual ways of deprecating things, migrating the callers, and then finally removing the deprecated methods. This is rather tedious and people tend not to do it for small cleanups like renames. If you can do it in one commit, you can work faster and hopefully get cleaner code.

Of course even if you have atomic source control commits, you don't have atomic deployment so there's still migration to take care of, but it works fine for in-process API's.

Of course, Facebook is supposedly one 50GB repo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com