Hey,

Of course - it seems to me that this docs PR might have just got stuck or 
forgotten; which is quite unfortunate.
Please add the release version 36.0.0 to PRs which should be in 36 or discussed (mention me if you can't set the version..or it doesn't exists yet) - so that we don't forget about them!

cheers,
Zoltan

On 1/15/26 4:09 AM, Satya Anuroop Kuppam wrote:
+1 to projections documentation in 36. I think we should include the
documentation, so folks can start experimenting with the feature. Currently
projections are called out in release notes but no documentation exists,
which is confusing.

*Thanks. Regards*
*Satya*


On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 3:20 AM Frank Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

I didn't receive the initial email from Zoltan about the 36 release branch
cutting.
was it sent in the dev channel?

One thing I just wanted to check is that the following document update
about PROJECTION has NOT been merged yet, which was supposed to be included
in Druid 35.
Will it be included in this release?

https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18056




On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 5:19 AM Abhishek Balaji Radhakrishnan <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Zoltan,

Yes, I’m all for regular quarterly releases like we’ve been doing. I was
just specifically calling out the code freeze timelines and it would be
helpful to have an overall tentative schedule laid out so folks know what
to expect and when.

I'm happy to leave the branch open for a week - just don't want to
block the master branch for new features which are ok to have in the next
release.
Does that sounds good?

This sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Abhishek

On 2026/01/12 09:10:47 Zoltan Haindrich wrote:
Hey Abhishek,

I think you are right the first email should have been sent out earlier
- but the regular schedule is more-or less to have a release in every
quarter.
I'm a big believer in that the stream of regular releases are more
important than having everything in them - if there would be just a
single
release in 1-2 years the push
to have a long code-freeze during which even features would be landed
would be bigger...but with every quarter: if you miss this you could just
have it in the next release.


I do think that cutting the branch is just a step which enables to
finalize the release branch - the release will only get more serious when
the RC builds is created.

I'm happy to leave the branch open for a week - just don't want to
block
the master branch for new features which are ok to have in the next
release.
Does that sounds good?

cheers,
Zoltan


On 1/10/26 4:43 AM, Abhishek Balaji Radhakrishnan wrote:
Hi Zoltan,

Thank you for volunteering to be the release manager for 36.0.0!

In my opinion, a one-day notice is too short for a code freeze. A
week’s heads-up would be really helpful so community developers can plan
changes, get in-flight reviews expedited and prioritized accordingly. I’m
not sure if there’s a process we have for the project, but I’m happy to
start a separate discussion if that would be useful for future releases.

I see that the 36.0.0 branch has already been cut. What do you think
about having a “soft” code freeze for a week where contributors are still
able to backport changes, after which we only backport release blockers,
security and other critical bug fixes?

I personally had plans to get some changes going, but I'm
prioritizing
reviews for https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18731 if we can get
that
into 36.0.0, assuming the patch is ready to be merged by then.

Thanks,
Abhishek



On 2026/01/09 16:50:55 Zoltan Haindrich wrote:
Hey All,

I've branched off [36.0.0](
https://github.com/apache/druid/tree/36.0.0) at
7fc05156ab1165563455a617a0cc87990f2ad783 patch (current HEAD)
The vuln scan found that xz should be above 1.10.2 - have some
license issues in the [PR](https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18898)
it
looks like we won't get huge issues
from this direction.
The version update PR for the master branch [is here](
https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18899)

cheers,
Zoltan


On 1/7/26 5:59 PM, Zoltan Haindrich wrote:
Hello all,

To keep the regular pace of Druid releases; 36.0.0 should be rolled
out in the upcoming month or so.
I would like to volunteer to be the release manager for this one.
Every earlier releases was started around the first few weeks of
the
quarter... :)
It would be nice to open the branch this week.

There are some interesting issues/PRs marked in the milestone [1].
* HttpRemoteTaskRunner enhancements #18851  [2]
     * seems like a a valuable PR - maybe the winter break have made
it lag behind a bit...
     * its not a correctness issue - so I don't think it could be a
blocker
* Realtime scans from MSQ cannot reliably read complex types #18340
[5]
     * not sure if this could be a blocker - as earlier versions
were
also affected by this limitation.
* Segment Load/Drop Race Causes Silent Partial Query Results #18738
[3]
     * has a lot of related discussions and some PRs
     * "Change segment state on HttpLoadQueuePeon ..."  [4] seems to
be fixing some part of the issue - but its not yet finished
     * I believe these race conditions were hiding in quite a few
earlier versions without being uncovered - I would like to rely on
Kashif /
@jtuglu1 to decide if this
should block the release or not.

If there is anything more which should be discussed please reply to
this thread and/or mark it on github with the 36.0.0 milestone [1] so
that
it doesn't fall off the radar!

cheers,
Zoltan

[1] https://github.com/apache/druid/milestone/65
[2] https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18851
[3] https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/18738
[4] https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18824
[5] https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/18340



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]





Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to