It might be worth discussing the possible use-cases for Builder re-use, since this would be a new feature that wasn't previously possible. A clone would have to manually build an object of same semantics so every object down the line would have to do this to allow for deep copies, which would also add significant boilerplate throughout the backend. We might discuss if this tradeoff is worth the code-quality gains.

@gok99 I have provided a proof of concept for the clone feature in the draft PR linked to this issue, for your reference.

I agree that allowing deep cloning would introduce a significant amount of boilerplate code (as seen in the draft PR, with the different classes implementing the Cloneable::clone() method to allow cloning of RepoConfiguration and CliArguments. It might also incur additional performance/memory overhead through the creation of multiple referenced objects on the heap.

I'm not too sure where Builders can be reused efficiently at the moment; the only place I am certain would help would be the test cases (test cases can reuse base Builder objects to create more complex objects, reducing the amount of code needed to execute the test cases), but implementing such a drastic feature just for a slight improvement in memory use for unit testing might not be worth the increase in bloat and complexity of the codebase coupled with the increase in code quality...