Add monorepo merger plan documentation for React on Rails

[AbanoubGhadban]

Summary

Remove this paragraph and provide a general description of the code changes in your pull
request... were there any bugs you had fixed? If so, mention them. If
these bugs have open GitHub issues, be sure to tag them here as well,
to keep the conversation linked together.

Pull Request checklist

Remove this line after checking all the items here. If the item is not applicable to the PR, both check it out and wrap it by ~.

• Add/update test to cover these changes
• Update documentation
• Update CHANGELOG file

Add the CHANGELOG entry at the top of the file.

Other Information

Remove this paragraph and mention any other important and relevant information such as benchmarks.

---

This change is 

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a comprehensive monorepo merger plan outlining the unified architecture, repository structure, and license boundaries (MIT vs Pro).
  • Details a phased rollout with success criteria, risk and rollback plans, CI/CD unification, and contributor guidance.
  • Defines development workflows to preserve history and maintain package independence.
  • Introduces an overview of automated license compliance checks and post-merger release strategies.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

Adds a new documentation file outlining a phased plan to merge react_on_rails and react_on_rails_pro into a monorepo, covering architecture, repository structure, licensing boundaries, CI/CD unification, workflows, risk/rollback procedures, and a license compliance framework.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of Changes
Documentation: Monorepo Merger Plan docs/MONOREPO_MERGER_PLAN.md	Added comprehensive merger plan detailing architecture, repo layout, phased steps, licensing boundaries (MIT vs Pro), CI/CD strategy, automation for license compliance, success criteria, risks, rollback, and post-merger ops.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related issues

• Monorepo of pro and basic #1765 — Describes the same monorepo merger plan and licensing boundaries detailed in this new document.

Possibly related PRs

• Chore/license files #1763 — Implements licensing files and structure that align with the plan’s MIT/Pro license boundary requirements.

Suggested reviewers

• justin808
• alexeyr-ci2
• Romex91

Poem

A bunny sketched a merger map so grand,
With MIT and Pro marked paw-in-hand.
Subtrees hop, histories stay,
CI burrows pave the way.
Licenses sorted, risks in a row—
Onward to one garden, ready to grow! 🐇🌿

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch draft-monorepo-merging-plan

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6fdfc08 and cdd2801.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/MONOREPO_MERGER_PLAN.md (1 hunks)

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[claude]

Code Review for PR #1817: Add monorepo merger plan documentation

Summary

This PR adds comprehensive documentation for the monorepo merger plan, outlining the strategy to combine react_on_rails and react_on_rails_pro repositories into a unified monorepo structure.

Strengths

1. Comprehensive Planning: The document provides an extremely detailed, phased approach with clear success criteria for each step.
2. License Compliance Focus: Excellent emphasis on maintaining strict license boundaries between MIT and Pro licensed code.
3. Risk Management: Well-thought-out risk mitigation strategies with rollback procedures.
4. CI/CD Safety: Each phase ensures CI passes before proceeding, preventing broken states.
5. Automated Enforcement: Includes scripts and CI integration for automated license compliance checking.

Code Quality & Best Practices

Documentation Quality: Excellent

• Clear structure with phases, objectives, and tasks
• Excellent use of checkboxes for tracking progress
• Good use of code examples and directory structures

Technical Accuracy: Very Good

• Git subtree approach is appropriate for preserving history
• Yarn workspace structure is well-designed
• Proper separation of packages maintains independence

Potential Issues & Suggestions

1. PR Description Incomplete:

   • The PR body still contains template text that should be removed
   • Missing actual summary of what this documentation provides
   • Checklist items are unchecked

2. Timeline Considerations:

   • 4-5 week estimate seems optimistic for such a complex merger
   • Consider adding buffer time for unexpected issues
   • No mention of code freeze periods during merger

3. Migration Path:

   • Could benefit from more detailed examples of how existing users will migrate
   • Missing information about deprecation warnings or compatibility layers

4. Backup Strategy:

   • While rollback is mentioned, explicit backup procedures before each phase would be valuable
   • Consider creating archive branches at each successful phase

Performance Considerations

• The phased approach minimizes risk but may extend the timeline
• Workspace structure should improve build times once implemented
• CI consolidation will reduce redundancy and maintenance overhead

Security Concerns

• License compliance is well-addressed
• Consider adding automated checks for accidentally exposed Pro features in MIT code
• Good emphasis on not committing secrets or keys

Test Coverage

• Document mentions testing at each phase (good)
• Includes automated license compliance testing (excellent)
• Could benefit from explicit integration test examples between core and pro packages

Recommendations

1. Update PR Description: Remove template text and provide a clear summary
2. Add Concrete Examples: Include specific command examples for common developer workflows post-merger
3. Communication Plan: Add a section on how to communicate changes to the community
4. Version Strategy: Clarify how version bumps will be handled during the merger
5. Dependency Management: Add details about managing cross-package dependencies
6. Consider Adding:
   • Troubleshooting section for common merger issues
   • FAQ section for developer questions
   • Metrics for measuring merger success

Overall Assessment

This is an excellent, thorough planning document that demonstrates careful consideration of the complexities involved in merging these repositories. The phased approach with strict CI and license compliance checks at each step is particularly well-designed. With the minor improvements suggested above, this document will serve as an excellent guide for the merger process.

Recommendation: Approve with minor changes - Update the PR description and consider the suggestions above, but the document itself is ready for use.