Skip to main content
Catalog
T006
Technology

Monorepo Gravity Well

MEDIUM(75%)
·
February 2026
·
4 sources
T006Technology
75% confidence

What people believe

Monorepos simplify dependency management and improve code sharing.

What actually happens
+500%CI build time
+1000%Git clone time
SimplifiedCross-project code sharing
ProhibitiveProject extraction cost
4 sources · 3 falsifiability criteria
Context

Teams adopt monorepos to simplify dependency management, enable atomic cross-project changes, and share code easily. Google and Meta run massive monorepos, so it must work. But those companies built custom tooling costing millions — Bazel, Buck, custom VCS. Most teams adopt monorepos with off-the-shelf tools (npm workspaces, Turborepo, Nx) and hit scaling walls within 12-18 months. CI pipelines slow to a crawl as every change triggers builds across the entire repo. Git operations degrade as the repo grows. Ownership boundaries blur — everyone can change everything, so nobody owns anything. The monorepo becomes a gravity well: easy to add projects, nearly impossible to extract them.

Hypothesis

What people believe

Monorepos simplify dependency management and improve code sharing.

Actual Chain
CI/CD pipeline complexity explodes(Build times 5-10x longer within 18 months)
Every PR triggers cross-project builds
Flaky tests in unrelated projects block merges
CI costs scale superlinearly with repo size
Ownership boundaries dissolve(Shared code becomes nobody's responsibility)
Breaking changes propagate silently across teams
Code review bottlenecks on shared packages
Git performance degrades at scale(Clone, checkout, status operations slow 3-5x)
Developers need sparse checkout workarounds
IDE indexing becomes painfully slow
New developer onboarding time increases
Extraction becomes prohibitively expensive(Tightly coupled code resists separation)
Projects that should be independent can't be extracted
Monorepo becomes permanent architectural constraint
Impact
MetricBeforeAfterDelta
CI build time5-10 min per project30-60 min monorepo+500%
Git clone timeSecondsMinutes to hours+1000%
Cross-project code sharingPackage publishingDirect importsSimplified
Project extraction costN/AWeeks to months of workProhibitive
Navigation

Don't If

  • Your team is under 20 engineers and projects have clear boundaries
  • You don't have dedicated build infrastructure engineering capacity

If You Must

  • 1.Invest in build caching and affected-project detection from day one
  • 2.Enforce strict ownership boundaries with CODEOWNERS files
  • 3.Use sparse checkout and partial clone to manage repo size
  • 4.Define extraction criteria before projects enter the monorepo

Alternatives

  • Polyrepo with shared packagesPublish shared code as packages, keep projects independent
  • Focused monoreposGroup tightly coupled projects only, not everything
  • Git submodulesShared code as submodules — ugly but maintains boundaries
Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

  • Teams adopting monorepos with off-the-shelf tooling report sustained CI performance at scale beyond 50 projects
  • Monorepo adoption correlates with improved code ownership clarity rather than ownership diffusion
  • Project extraction from monorepos is routinely accomplished in under one week
Sources
  1. 1.
    Google Monorepo Paper: Why Google Stores Billions of Lines in a Single Repository

    Google's monorepo works because of massive custom tooling investment most companies can't replicate

  2. 2.
    Uber's Monorepo Migration Challenges

    Uber documented significant CI/CD scaling challenges after monorepo adoption

  3. 3.
    Nx and Turborepo Performance Benchmarks

    Build tools help but can't fully solve the fundamental scaling challenges of large monorepos

  4. 4.
    Microsoft 1ES: Lessons from the Largest Git Repo

    Microsoft's Windows repo required custom VFS for Git to function at scale

Related

This is a mirror — it shows what's already true.

Want to surface the hidden consequences of your engineering decisions?

Try Lagbase