Thank you Ben. Changed has been merged.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:02 PM Benjamin Trent <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Let's do it. I am gonna respin with Alan's adaptive work tomorrow.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 7:07 AM Ignacio Vera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> I have another last minute bug fix in lucene polygon tessellator:
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/15700. I wonder if it is ok for
>> you to add it to the release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ignacio
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 2:18 PM Benjamin Trent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Alan. Have we verified the multi-magnitude regression is fixed?
>>>
>>> I am happy to respin.
>>>
>>> Sorry y'all for yet another RC failing. This release is getting
>>> complicated :). But better to respin than release and require a bugfix!.
>>>
>>> This RC has not passed.
>>>
>>> Will create a new RC after confirming fix.
>>>
>>> Thank you all for your patience.
>>>
>>> We will get 10.4 soon, I promise!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Ben Trent
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 4:12 AM Alan Woodward <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve merged https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/15696 and backported
>>>> to branch_10x and branch_10_4
>>>>
>>>> On 11 Feb 2026, at 13:55, Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We’ve found a serious regression in the performance of sorted queries
>>>> against SortedSetDocValues fields with skippers enabled, which looks like
>>>> it’s due to the change to use DocValuesRangeIterator as a competitive
>>>> iterator.  I’m working on a fix now, and should hopefully have something up
>>>> in a couple of hours, but I think this will need a re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> - Alan W
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Feb 2026, at 21:15, Tomás Fernández Löbbe <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>
>>>> SUCCESS! [1:51:58.269208]
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 5:43 PM Mayya Sharipova <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> SUCCESS! [0:46:50.723810]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 11:54 AM Chris Hegarty <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SUCCESS! [1:24:45.731767]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 10 Feb 2026, at 16:15, Shubham Chaudhary <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > SUCCESS! [0:53:19.960007]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 7:02 AM Shubham Sharma <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> > +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > SUCCESS! [1:06:49.430942]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 11:54 AM Ignacio Vera <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > +1 (binding)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > SUCCESS! [1:18:45.543439]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 6:52 AM Anshum Gupta <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> > +1 (binding)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The smoke tester is happy.
>>>>>> > SUCCESS! [1:23:12.616392]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 3:54 PM Benjamin Trent <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hey. y'all,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 10.4.0
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-10.4.0-RC2-rev-b46b0faf340554e8210ad41420f271439b907a24
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-10.4.0-RC2-rev-b46b0faf340554e8210ad41420f271439b907a24
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours i.e. until 2026-02-13
>>>>>> 00:00 UTC.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [ ] +1  approve
>>>>>> > [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>>>> > [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Here is my +1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Ben Trent
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Reply via email to