shepwalker

PR's are not split into submodules/frameworks for distinct review purposes. Functionally though, right now we have three distinct monorepos (not very 'mono' but we're working on it!), that represent our three main development stacks.

In our PR tooling, there's nothing that enforces/encourages scoping changes to a specific subset of any given repo. We generally encourage smaller PRs as a best practice, but a huge chunk of the benefit of a moonorepo is folks can make cross-cutting changes if/when necessary.

We have some custom goo on top of Github that manages the review flow. Specifically, we try to make it easy for folks to farm out reviews to the teams that own the code you're editing, so they don't have to hop in Slack and track down reviewers.

Hi! I work at Stripe on this. What're you curious about?

yeaaah, I used to hold this view and drove a team - hard - to essentially pull apart a monorepo into different components with clear contract boundaries. It was by far one of my greatest errors in professional judgement.

at the risk of coming up with a contrived example: let's say you own a service that need to deserialize a datetime in a request in a format you don't currently support. assuming you own the stack, you need to a) update your date library b) update your webserver stack c) possibly update an intermediate webserver stack that includes primitives like logging, telemetry, tracing, auth, service discovery and d) your actual service.

If a->d are all independent, separate components, you have to orchestrate those changes through 4 separate repositories. And god forbid something you did at the lowest point in the stack is completely unworkable higher up.

There's all sorts of rocket science you could do to orchestrate these changes, but it ends up being contrived and edgecasey.

Most of the pain from monorepos can also be addressed with a dash of rocketscience (see:bazel), but the end model tends to have

a) have an easier mental model for the user

b) allow for consolidation of infrastructure work. Ie, your build/ci/language tooling teams can focus their efforts on one place

c) can coordinate changes across the entire stack within one field of view

d) can coral some of the worst, disparate instincts of a growing engineering org (ie, tons of teams optimizing for local maximas without internalizing knock-on effects).

e) fewer weird edgecases.

the amount of internal denial about the pay gap between us and FANG companies is pretty silly. a lot of high performers get the principal-band bump tangled in front of them for years as an incentive. (level 66+. level 65 is the first "principal" level but doesn't get the non-linear comp boost yet).

Oh lord, product studio. Back in 2013 the preferred method of filing workitems for a given "wave" was to load this spreadsheet, do weiiird formatting, and indentation, type up all the workitems you foresee for the next sprint and then press a magic "send to product studio" button." God help you if you messed up some of the nesting or wanted to reorder anything - honestly I would just wipe it clean and start from scratch.

Ironically my team just finished a product called RAID that was designed to kill bugs in product studio and move them to DevOps. There are still pockets of teams that use Product Studio within Microsoft - the sufficiency gap is real - but they're the overwhelming minority now.

Absolutely, agreed. But unilateral disarmament isn't the way to do so. If Stripe has a nice post about vehemently supporting politicians and policies that aim to get corporate money out of politics, they will quietly get my upvote and thoughtful nod of approval.

You can't throw a wifi-enabled juicer 5 feet without hitting half a dozen companies that are trying to be 'technological catalysts'. You're giving extra credit for unproven rate of return, which I'd still argue won't amount to meaningful change unless the political status quo is aggressively challenged.

The reason you spent $Xmil on a PAC is the same reason we (inclusive, hopefully) vote. Will one significantly contributor turn the tide? Probably not. But it requires good (corporate) citizens to put up or shutup instead of leveraging a tweak on a pet environmental project to gain a positive press cycle.

I'm a big 'ol fan of Stripe, but large scale change isn't going to happen through corporate self regulation.

I wish tech companies that insist they want to make large, positive changes would come to terms with the fact that putting pressure on political levers is fundamentally necessary. I would be far more aggressive in my support of this effort if it was explicitly "we're doing this effort to cover our own tracks and we're contributing to a PAC that will support politicians who prioritize sensible environmental policy."

You can get similar behavior with Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/s/pcutvzhj8nc4auu/indy_asleep.jpeg And OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqxVBILuAH4kssIAdGJhBtwUCm5DhA

{I assume Box has something similar but I don't feel like finding my creds}

Screenshots of the dialogs: https://imgur.com/a/lijzeli

The big difference I see is that that the Google Photos share model feels related more to mobile-sharing scenarios than access control - ie, you're sending your buddy a link! Vs you're granting access, and that distinction isn't super blatantly called out.

Disclosure: I work on OneDrive for Microsoft

I always tell people that my life-saving workout device was the Kindle 3. In 2010, I was 315 lbs, sedentary as hell and not making any progress to fix that. The idea of running just seemed like complete drudgery.

I ended up making a pact with a friend to meet up at the gym every morning, and I took my kindle and reread a long epic fantasy series page by page. I started off stupid-slow, with a slight incline. First 25 lbs shed without a problem, and steadily increased my pace.

I've now graduated to actually running outside (yay!) and distracting myself with podcasts, have completed 2 half-marathons, and at one point was down to ~210lbs.

People's motivations and activation hurdles are different - for me it was boredom and accountability - which I fixed with a book and some peer pressure.

But depending on how stringent your bounding box for "culture fit" is, you end up building an archetype for age, gender, education and ethnicity of your target employee.

The point is is that if you're targeting people who behave like you, have plenty of shared interests and reflect your own way of doing things, those people are going to end up looking a lot like you too.

I think the point that potatolicious is trying to make is that the ambiguity of "cultural fit" ends up becoming a path to hiring people who are very similar to yourself. An alternative approach would be to define explicit, concrete values that your company and team reflect, and look for hires that mirror those values instead of nebulous "cultural" fit.