51 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
|
# ADR-0002 — Monorepo vs polyrepo for the six subsystems
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Status: proposed
|
||
|
|
- Date: 2026-05-24
|
||
|
|
- Workplan: CE-WP-0001-T07 (stub)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Context
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The umbrella-first MVP lives entirely in `citation-evidence/` under
|
||
|
|
`src/{shared,engine,anchor,source,binder,work,app}/`. Each folder is named
|
||
|
|
after its eventual extracted package. At some point — driven by an external
|
||
|
|
consumer needing one subsystem, or by independent release cadence — code
|
||
|
|
will move out into its sister repo.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
We need a written answer to: when that moment comes, do we (a) keep one
|
||
|
|
repository with pnpm workspaces, (b) split into six independent repos with
|
||
|
|
published packages, or (c) something in between?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The decision affects: dependency management, release cadence, CI surface
|
||
|
|
area, contributor friction, and how `wiki/SharedContracts.md` is enforced
|
||
|
|
across the boundary.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Options
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- **A. Single repo, pnpm workspaces**
|
||
|
|
- Pros: one CI, one version of every dep, atomic cross-package PRs, easy
|
||
|
|
refactors. Shared contracts enforced by the type checker.
|
||
|
|
- Cons: any consumer outside this repo needs a private registry or
|
||
|
|
git-tag-based installs. Release cadence is shared.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- **B. Six independent repos, published packages**
|
||
|
|
- Pros: clean external publish story, independent versioning. Forces the
|
||
|
|
contract to be a real package boundary.
|
||
|
|
- Cons: dependency upgrades require coordinated PR trains. Refactors that
|
||
|
|
span subsystems become multi-repo dances. Hard to keep
|
||
|
|
`SharedContracts.md` in sync across repos.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- **C. Hybrid — monorepo with publishable workspaces**
|
||
|
|
- Pros: best of both: one repo for dev, but `pnpm publish` from any
|
||
|
|
workspace package. Tools: changesets / nx / turbo.
|
||
|
|
- Cons: more tooling to learn; per-workspace `package.json` cuts to
|
||
|
|
maintain.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(blank — to be answered before the first subsystem extraction lands.)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Consequences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(blank)
|