I checked the 2025 data: out of 492 ASF JIRA account requests for Spark, only *34* were rejected. Most requests were reviewed and approved—often on the same day—by Sean Owen ([email protected]).
I don’t have data on how many approved accounts eventually filed a JIRA. On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:28 AM Tian Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we have a stat about how many of them are approved and how many > approved accounts made at least 1 JIRA? > > We know the current flow is: > > Desire to contribute -> Find out need to use JIRA -> Go to JIRA -> Realize > they need an account -> Request for account -> Wait for approval -> Submit > JIRA ticket -> Do a PR... > > For each step in this flow, we are losing contributors. As we already host > our repo on github, we can safely assume most of the desired contributors > are familiar with github workflow, then the workflow could be > > Desire to contribute -> submit an issue -> do a PR. > > From my experience in open source projects, contributor's desire to > contribute fades fast when they hit blockers, especially procedural issues. > > Tian Gao > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:14 AM Gengliang Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I did a quick check and found that there were *492* new ASF Spark JIRA >> account creation requests in 2025. The extra step of requesting a JIRA >> account can still be a meaningful barrier—especially for contributors who >> are already active on GitHub but less familiar with ASF workflows. >> >> +1 to maintaining both ASF JIRA and GitHub Issues. >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:09 AM Tian Gao via dev <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> First of all, I believe the merge script is another issue that is worth >>> discussing but not strictly involved in this proposal. I was talking about >>> potential future benefits for the merge script by migrating our work to >>> github. On this specific matter, like I said, a github bot would probably >>> be better than a manual script - we should be able to do whatever we do >>> with that. The good thing is we can just label the PR (auto-merge) (or a >>> specific comment like bot merge) and run the bot, instead of setting up a >>> local environment. >>> >>> Back to the real topic. I don't think we should keep two systems >>> stamping on each other in the long term. But we have a puzzle that we'll >>> never solve if we bind all PRs to JIRA - how many more contributors we will >>> have if it's easier for them to contribute code? I don't have a definitive >>> answer for that and that's what I want to find out. I think the existing >>> committers will benefit some from a successful migration, but the real >>> motivation is for people who are not familiar with JIRA or who can't/don't >>> want to use JIRA. If we can get a significant boost of our community >>> contribution, I'd say that's worth the trouble. I think many of us are >>> thinking about this from a committer's perspective (which is natural >>> obviously), but I was a new contributor 6 months ago and the first thing >>> that stopped me from contributing was the allowed-user-only JIRA. >>> >>> People may argue that almost all recent contributions are from >>> committers or regular contributors and they are already familiar with JIRA >>> - that's true, but isn't that also evidence that we should embrace the >>> community a bit more? >>> >>> I think if we support a dual-rail system - it should be an intermediate >>> phase where we observe if it's worth it for us to migrate to github issues. >>> If so, it gives us some time to build infra around github issues while >>> keeping the workflow going. >>> >>> Of course, it's possible that this is just some fantasy I have and we >>> don't get observably more new contributions from the community with github >>> issues, then we can just use it as a discussion board and feedback channel. >>> >>> Tian Gao >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 5:07 AM Jungtaek Lim < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The only downside I can think of is future release notes will contain >>>>> mixed items from Github Issues and JIRAs. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I think this is trivial. IMHO if we want to maintain two >>>> systems altogether, each system should serve its purpose and not >>>> interleave. >>>> >>>> For example, allowing Github issues to be an easy entry point for >>>> questions, making Github issues to serve the major purpose of users@ >>>> instead of drop-in replacement of JIRA. And for code contributions we still >>>> require JIRA tickets. This strictly scopes the purpose of both systems. >>>> >>>> It doesn't mean I prefer maintaining two systems; I mean let's not >>>> leave both systems to be active for the same purpose which will bug us in >>>> future. I don't have a strong opinion to pick one system over another, but >>>> I have an opinion that we shouldn't end up with compromise and >>>> make the infra to be a weird state. >>>> >>>> Btw I'm not sure Github's squeeze commit in the UI page is a drop-in >>>> replacement of the merge script e.g. the merge script handles the tricky >>>> authorship issue via listing up lead-author and co-authors based on the >>>> author of commits before squeezing. I don't know whether it's supported. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 4:07 PM Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 to maintain both. Why not give contributors a new option with >>>>> Github Issues? All we need to do is to allow people to create PRs with >>>>> link >>>>> to Github Issues, in addition to JIRAs. The only downside I can think of >>>>> is >>>>> future release notes will contain mixed items from Github Issues and >>>>> JIRAs. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 7:22 AM Lisa N. Cao <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would make it easier for the community to see the progress of >>>>>> features, but there is some work involved to maintain both. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> LNC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 3:10 PM Tian Gao via dev < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm okay with not retiring JIRA, but if we only allow PRs with JIRA >>>>>>> tickets, we still have the same issue - the new contributors can't work >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> any problems without access to JIRA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, opening issue tabs will help with community feedback, but I >>>>>>> don't think we get full benefit from it if we restrict it to be a >>>>>>> "discussion only" place. The community of spark is not only users, but >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> occasional contributors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we worry about the dramatic migration from JIRA, we can open >>>>>>> github issues, and start building infra around it, while keeping the old >>>>>>> system working. If we see a trend of committers using github issues >>>>>>> more often, that's an indicator that people like github integration more >>>>>>> than the existing JIRA system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, migrating to github issues means we probably need to throw away >>>>>>> a bunch of scripts for JIRA, but some of them are not necessary in the >>>>>>> first place if we use github issues. For example, linking issues to PRs >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> a native supported feature in github. Github supports "squash-only" >>>>>>> merge >>>>>>> so people won't accidentally merge PRs with all the commit history. >>>>>>> Github >>>>>>> also supports "using PR description as commit message". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even if we do want extra flexibility, github bots have the >>>>>>> advantages of authentication. For example, if I understand correctly, >>>>>>> committers need their JIRA token to make the current merge script work - >>>>>>> that won't be necessary if we use github. Github issues can be closed >>>>>>> automatically when a linked PR is merged (with close #number) or a >>>>>>> github >>>>>>> bot can easily do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, if we don't want to close JIRA, I'm totally fine with a >>>>>>> dual-rail system which allows users to submit a PR based on a github >>>>>>> issue, >>>>>>> instead of a JIRA ticket. We can do that gradually and polish up all the >>>>>>> infra required for github issues. Then we can make a decision whether to >>>>>>> migrate completely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tian Gao >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 2:47 PM Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 because I don't think we should move from the existing one (ASF >>>>>>>> JIRA) to a new one (GitHub Issues) completely to meet the suggested >>>>>>>> ideas. >>>>>>>> It sounds like a little overkill for the goals. They can be used more >>>>>>>> harmoniously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specifically, I want to counter-propose a simpler alternative which >>>>>>>> is used already in some ASF projects: GitHub Issue Tab can be used as >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> additional preliminary discussion place (receiving issue reports before >>>>>>>> creating actual JIRA issues). Since this is open to all GitHub users, >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> already meets the proposed goals. And, there is no reason to abandon >>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>> JIRA because only worthy ideas will get JIRA IDs after closing >>>>>>>> duplicated >>>>>>>> issues or naive Spark questions from GitHub Issue tabs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can build a better layered issue reporting system by getting all >>>>>>>> the benefits of the existing ASF JIRA infra and GitHub Issue Tab >>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>> wasting lots of the community resources due to the drastic migration >>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>> abandoning the established system, script, practices). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > I think we should move from JIRA to github issues for >>>>>>>> > * more feedback from community >>>>>>>> > * lower barrier to entry for new contributors >>>>>>>> > * better integration with the whole github eco-system >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dongjoon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2026/01/27 14:57:00 Bjørn Jørgensen wrote: >>>>>>>> > Github use mentioned instead of related to >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Like this >>>>>>>> > [image: image.png] >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/48961 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > tir. 27. jan. 2026 kl. 14:58 skrev Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>>>> > [email protected]>: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > One thing GitHub Issues doesn’t have a native equivalent to are >>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>> > > links. GitHub will extract mentions of other tickets and >>>>>>>> highlight them in >>>>>>>> > > the side bar, but on Jira you can just link a ticket to another >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> > > directly. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-28024 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > [image: Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 8.55.28 AM.png] >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Not saying this is a blocker. Just calling this out so we can >>>>>>>> try to >>>>>>>> > > preserve this information after the migration. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Nick >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Jan 26, 2026, at 8:00 PM, DB Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > +1, the bar for using JIRA is too high—contributors need a >>>>>>>> PMC/committer >>>>>>>> > > to create an account. Using GitHub issues would make it much >>>>>>>> easier for >>>>>>>> > > people to participate. >>>>>>>> > > DB Tsai | https://www.dbtsai.com/ | PGP 42E5B25A8F7A82C1 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Jan 26, 2026, at 2:30 PM, Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > TBH, if we can manage to migrate all related repos in Apache >>>>>>>> Spark, I feel >>>>>>>> > > like it might be a great idea. >>>>>>>> > > lately I started to actively work on Apache Arrow, and realised >>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>> > > also successfully migrate to GitHub Issues from JIRA for all >>>>>>>> ther repos. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 at 05:49, Tian Gao via dev < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >> Hi all, I'd like to start a discussion on a draft SPIP: >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WMaA49hKyu7gtU189fPq4k8TeI-Q73Q6bqSeWAgR3y8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> tl; dr >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> I think we should move from JIRA to github issues for >>>>>>>> > >> * more feedback from community >>>>>>>> > >> * lower barrier to entry for new contributors >>>>>>>> > >> * better integration with the whole github eco-system >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> Many apache projects have moved from JIRA to github issues >>>>>>>> successfully, >>>>>>>> > >> including Arrow, Airflow, Beam, Maven, Lucene ... Actually >>>>>>>> most of apache >>>>>>>> > >> projects are using github issues now, with a few exceptions >>>>>>>> including spark. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> I'd like to hear more about this proposal from the community. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> Thanks! >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> Tian Gao >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Bjørn Jørgensen >>>>>>>> > Vestre Aspehaug 4, 6010 Ålesund >>>>>>>> > Norge >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > +47 480 94 297 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
