monorepo.tools VS josh

I'm surprised this isn't getting any attention. Reading the docs, sounds very promising, thanks for creating this! I see Nx, Turbo and Moon being mentioned in passing in [Alternatives & pitfalls](https://onerepo.tools/concepts/why-onerepo/#alternatives--pi...), but a more in-depth comparison would be interesting. At least something that could be a column in the table at the bottom of [monorepo.tools](https://monorepo.tools/#tools-review).

> I don't think anyone coming from a multi-repo world really understands the full implications of a monorepo until they've worked in a large scale one

That's entirely fair. My sole experience is the one black-sheep monorepo at my own relatively-recently joined company, which is nowhere even close to approaching true large scale.

Genuine question, though - what _are_ the advantages, as you see them (you didn't explicitly say as much, but I'm reading between the lines that you _can_ see some)? Every positive claim I've seen (primarily at https://monorepo.tools/, but also elsewhere) feels either flimsy, or outright false:

* "No overhead to create new projects - Use the existing CI setup" - I'm pretty confident that the amount of DX tooling work to make it super-smooth to create a new project is _dwarfed_ by the amount of work to make monorepos...work...

* "Atomic commits across projects // One version of everything" - this is...actively bad? If I make a change to my library, I also have to change every consumer of it (or, worse, synchronize with them to make their changes at the same time before I can merge)? Whereas, in a polyrepo situation, I can publish the new version of my library, and decoupled consumers can update their consumption when they want to

* "Developer mobility - Get a consistent way of building and testing applications" - it's perfectly easy to have a consistent experience across polyrepos, and or to have an inconsistent one in a monorepo. In fairness I will concede that a monorepo makes a consistent experience more _likely_, but that's a weak advantage at best. Monorepos _do_ make it significantly harder to _deliberately_ use different languages in different services, though, which is a perfectly cromulent thing to permit.

The section on what monorepo tools should provide is useful if you are planning to set up an enterprise-level monorepo.

The next step would be to familiarize yourself with the codebase. Most of the repositories use monorepos for organizing and managing their code. A rule of the thumb here would be to make yourself familiar with what component lies in which place. It is next to impossible to understand the entire codebase at once. For starters, you can:

Monorepos are a great concept, especially in environments like Node.js which encourage having many small packages.

You might want to use monorepo tooling like NX, Lerna, or Turborepo to guide you. https://monorepo.tools/ has a list of tools.

This explains it really well: https://monorepo.tools/

Have a look here to get some good context around monorepo tooling and if it’s something you actually need and want to do - https://monorepo.tools Some of the monorepo tooling can be a steep learning curve so you want to really think about the problem you are trying to solve and whether the effort will be worth it

Why use submodules when you can properly vendor the upstream git, and export/import commits without breaking hashes on either side?

https://github.com/josh-project/josh

We've been using josh at TVL for years and it's just amazing.

Scalar explicitly does not implement the virtualized filesystem the OP is referring to. The original Git VFS for Windows that Microsoft designed did in fact do this, but as your second link notes, Microsoft abandoned that in favor of Scalar's totally different design which explicitly was about scaling repositories without filesystem virtualization.

There's a bunch of related features they added to Git to achieve scalability without virtualization. Those are all useful and Scalar is a welcome addition. But the need for a virtual filesystem layer for large-scale repositories is still a very real one. There are also some limitations that aren't ideal; for example Git's partial clones IIRC can only be used as a "cone" applied to the original filesystem hierarchy. More generalized designs would allow mapping any arbitrary paths in the original repository to any other path in the virtual checkout. Tools like Josh can do this today with existing Git repositories[1]. That helps you get even sparser and smaller checkouts.

The Git for Windows that was referenced isn't even that big at 300GB, by the way. Game studios regularly have repositories that exist at multi-terabyte size, and they have also converged on similar virtualization solutions. For example, Destiny 2 uses a "virtual file synchronization" layer called VirtualSync[2] that reduced the working size of their checkouts by over 98%, multiple terabytes of savings per person. And in a twist of fate, VirtualSync was implemented thanks to a feature called "ProjFS" that Microsoft added to Windows... which was motivated originally by the Git VFS for Windows they abandoned!

[1] https://github.com/josh-project/josh

[2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1027699/Virtual-Sync-Terabytes...

Good overview, I know these sorts of pains well. Lots of hard questions and few definitive wins/right answers. How to organize a massive repository out in the open is still an open question. On that note, recently, I've been experimenting with this project called josh, which basically is like 'git subtree on extreme steroids, functioning as a git proxy':

https://josh-project.github.io/josh/

It basically lets you unify/view many repositories as a single one, or equivalent to split a mono-repo into smaller sized units of work for CI, specific teams, etc. It's bidirectional, so you push and pull from josh and everything goes into a single linear history in the mono repo. And because it's bidirectional, people in the mono-repo can still do things like make large-scale atomic changes across all sub-repositories, and those get reflected.

Josh currently isn't suitable for a lot of workloads due to various reasons (authentication is one that stands out), but it's actually the first tool I have seen that manages to offer BitKeeper-like "subtrees" that work really well, at scale, for large repos and teams. It requires some care to make sure "sub-trees" can be usable units of work, but it was one of the best features of BK in my opinion and really great for people doing one-off contributions, or isolating trees/changes to specific developers.

I'd be interested to know if there are other open alternatives to this. It's a nice point in the design space between solutions like "integrate with the filesystem layer to do sparse clones" or "just split up the repos."

With regard to repo composition, I have been following this project: https://github.com/josh-project/josh