-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 716
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Migrate to Monorepo #1550
Comments
My idea was, if, we have "native" support for monorepos using workspaces, just go with that. @Lord-Valen If you want to pick that up, feel free to give it a go. |
I would say package manager workspaces are not good enough. Monorepo frameworks solves a lot of problems when working with monorepos, the first that comes to my mind is: given a task, which packages should be targeted? Which is the best execution plan given the actual package dependencies? After having tried old lerna, new lerna, nx and turborepo, I highly prefer turborepo over the other ones. It's very actively maintained, popular, suported by vercel and mature enought to go for it imho. |
I just randomly stumbled upon this thread after starting to use inversify. I can recommend moon as another monorepo tool. I have only experience with nx and moon though, but I thought I'll add it to your list... |
Closing since we already set the foundation for the new monorepo |
CC @acald-creator @PodaruDragos @Jameskmonger
In the Inversify Discord server, moving the inversify projects to a monorepo was being discussed. I find that these sorts of things usually benefit from a tracking issue so that a clear goal is defined and anyone can pick up the task. The general consensus appears to be that the repos would be migrated to npm/yarn workspaces. Lerna and NX were considered. I would like to open that up to include Rush and Turborepo. If shying away from workspaces, then NX and Turborepo are preferable for their caching and fast build times.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: