We don't actually have a single repository, although Google3/Piper really is huge and dominant. Android, Chrome, Fuchsia, and myriads of other projects don't exist in the monorepo (well, they are mirrored there) because the tooling and libraries there are really geared towards server deployment, not devices.
When I was working on an open source project at Google (mod_pagespeed) we initially developed it in the main repo with exports to GitHub. Then we moved our source of truth to GitHub to make it easier to work with external contributors.
(Speaking only for myself, not for Google)
Prior to Fiber, yes, I worked in Google3. I've been @ Google for 8 years.
Also, one main advantage of a monorepo is you can make changes across many packages at once. The canonical textbook example is changing the API of my service: I can find all the instances in the monorepo of where that API gets used and change both the API and update all the calling instances in an atomic operation. You can't (or at least, shouldn't) do that to mirrored projects because the mirror in the monorepo is downstream from the source of truth for the project.
On the other hand, if you aren’t doing simultaneous/atomic deploys, then having a monorepo may actually be an obstruction.
In fairness, that's the canonical test for "should this be 1 repo"
This article doesn’t claim that. Its title doesn’t imply it, and its second sentence denies it:
”today the vast majority of Google's software assets continues to be stored in a single, shared repository”
Of course, the scale is much lower, since it’s a really a single OS.
And you're right this topic is on a circular timer.
(more people are aware of the challenges and stumble upon monorepo as a tool to deal with this among other things)
related:
* unison
* clojure (immutability, spec, …)
* blockchain
* microservice architecturekarma farming?
and thought this might yield an interesting discussion
Some stories are great and worth seeing every few years.
Your anger gave away the fact that you do the same thing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Tomte
The one downside is that it creates a lot of noise on HN. It forces new stories off the first page quicker.
Also, stories about Jerry Lee Lewis’ marriage to a 13 year old isn’t HN, for example.
About Jerry Lee Lewis: I disagree. The sheer fact that moral compasses were so wildly divergent between America and England, of all pairs of countries, so recently, is quite on-topic, in my opinion.
Also, I think it's great that you found only one story you disagree with in the thirty stories my submission page shows. Clearly you approve of my selection.
> I’m simply pointing out why we get lots of repeat submissions.
That's explicitly okay, as the moderators point out all the time.
I didn’t say it wasn’t ok. I’m sure I do it occasionally.
I’m waiting for the first person to write a karma farming AI. Take great stories, determine a decay time, then repost.
“HN Karma Farming with Deep Learning (in Rust)”
This probably doesn't even need any AI, just some scrapping and scripting to determine when it's worth resubmitting.
Somebody should implement this, seems like fun.
Of course, if it's done with deep learning... then it would be something else. Maybe even determine correlation with other themes in the other news of the day/front page, or month, etc.
Sure, write that karma farming bot. Seems like a good service to those of us who want to see good content we may have missed, generate new discussions on classic content.
Complaining about “karma farming” has always seemed like a weird jealousy thing to me. Where you presumably care so much about karma that you’re annoyed over your arbitrary concept of karma-fairness. Who cares? If someone can get karma by reposting classic content for HNers who missed it the other times, more power to them. They reposted the content to an audience that wanted to see it. You can’t always take it personally or lash out at others just because you’re not part of that audience.
I did point out a downside, but have at it.
Your total "internet virtue points" here are displayed in the top right corner (whereas on Reddit you have to go looking). The virtue points any given comments gains are not visible to other people (unlike on reddit) but losses are. That doesn't seem like a big net difference between the two platforms.
HN's karma system is just as good as Reddit's at faking a consensus and marginalizing whoever has even a slightly less popular viewpoint on a subject.
(I don't know many well-designed karma systems, but, that's at least the goal. The feedback cycle exists for a reason.)
It's true that repostiness per se is annoying, but it's more annoying for good submissions to miss out on attention because /newest is something of a lottery. Allowing a small number of reposts is a way to mitigate that randomness, until we can maybe work out a better solution.