Repository strategy affects team collaboration and development workflow. Monorepo stores all code in a single repository. Polyrepo uses separate repositories per or team. Monorepo provides unified versioning and atomic commits across projects. Code sharing is simpler without package publishing overhead. Cross-project refactoring happens in single commits. Standardized tooling simplifies developer setup. Monorepo scales with tools like Bazel, Nx, and Turborepo. Polyrepo offers clearer team ownership and boundaries. Independent versioning enables separate release cycles. Smaller repositories have faster clone and build times. Team autonomy is maximized with independent workflows. Polyrepo requires package management for code sharing. Integration testing across repositories is more complex. Tooling choices can differ per repository. Monorepo requires significant investment in build tooling. Google, Meta, and Microsoft operate massive monorepos. Small to medium teams benefit from monorepo simplicity. Large organizations with independent teams may prefer polyrepo. Choose based on team structure, codebase size, and tooling capabilities.