mcore-split-pr

Split PR by CODEOWNERS Groups

Split a large pull request into multiple smaller PRs, where each PR touches the fewest possible CODEOWNERS reviewer groups. The goal is to reduce review burden: a PR that only touches megatron/core/ needs only the core reviewers, while a PR that also touches examples/, tools/, and megatron/training/ pulls in many additional groups.

Answer-First Constraints

For split-planning questions, lead with these constraints before the full workflow:

• Minimize CODEOWNERS reviewer groups per PR, but each resulting PR must still be independently mergeable and reviewable.
• Tests travel with the production code they validate; do not split tests into a separate PR just to reduce reviewer groups.
• If PR B depends on symbols renamed in PR A, call out the dependency and put backward-compatible aliases, re-exports, or shims in PR A when needed.
• When creating dependent PRs, set the dependent PR's GitHub base/diffbase to pull-request/<base PR number>, not the base PR author's branch.
• Before merging a base PR, retarget each dependent PR back to main and refresh it against main; otherwise GitHub may automatically close the dependent PR, losing approvals and review discussion.
• Wait for user approval before execution.
• Execution creates draft PRs from the right base, applies file-scoped diffs with git diff upstream/main..<source-branch> -- <paths> | git apply, pushes to the user's fork, and never pushes directly to upstream.

Workflow

1. Analyze the PR

1. Fetch the PR details: gh pr view <number> --repo NVIDIA/Megatron-LM --json title,body,headRefName,author and gh pr diff <number> --repo NVIDIA/Megatron-LM --stat. Also determine the current GitHub user with gh api user --jq .login.
2. Parse .github/CODEOWNERS to build a mapping from file path patterns to owner groups.
3. For each changed file in the PR, determine which CODEOWNERS groups would be required to review it.
4. Build a summary table grouped by CODEOWNERS group, showing which files pull in which groups.
5. Count the total number of distinct reviewer groups the PR currently requires.

2. Propose a split that minimizes reviewer groups per PR

The primary optimization goal: minimize the number of CODEOWNERS reviewer groups required for each resulting PR.

Strategy:

1. Cluster files by their CODEOWNERS groups. Files owned by the same set of groups naturally belong together.
2. Identify the largest cluster — this becomes the first (and usually largest) PR.
3. Remaining files form one or more additional PRs, each ideally requiring only one or two reviewer groups.
4. If a split creates a dependency (e.g., PR B uses symbols renamed in PR A), the dependent PR must be merged after the first. Note this explicitly.
5. Each PR must be independently mergeable to main — no broken imports, no missing symbols. Backward-compatible aliases and re-export stubs in the first PR can make this possible.

Present the proposed split as a table:

• PR name/description
• Files included
• CODEOWNERS groups required
• Dependencies on other PRs (if any)

Wait for user approval before proceeding.

3. Execute the split (after user approval)

For each new PR:

1. Create a new branch from the appropriate local base (main, or a dependency PR's branch).
2. Extract the relevant changes: git diff upstream/main..<source-branch> -- <file paths> | git apply.
3. Stage, commit with a clear message, and push to the user's fork.
4. Create the PR as a draft (per repo contributing guidelines). For dependent PRs, set the GitHub base/diffbase to pull-request/<base PR number>.
5. If the original PR needs to be narrowed in scope, confirm with the user before force-pushing.
6. Report all PR URLs when done.

Important guidelines

• Always create PRs as drafts and push to the user's fork, never directly to upstream.
• Backward-compatible changes (aliases, re-exports, deprecation shims) should go in the first PR so subsequent PRs can depend on them.
• Dependent PRs should target pull-request/<base PR number> while stacked, then be retargeted and refreshed to main before the base PR is merged.
• Test files should go with the production code they test, not in a separate PR.
• Prefer a single clean commit per split PR over replaying the original commit history.
• If a file is hard to categorize (e.g., it touches two groups), ask the user which PR it should go in.
• If the current GitHub user is not the author of the original PR, each new PR's description must explicitly credit the original author (e.g., "Original changes by @ in #").