Hey everyone,

I am interested in helping you guys for 10.6 and 11.0 releases candidates.


On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, 1:08 PM Luca Cavanna <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey all,
> I agree with releasing 10.6 first. I kind of assumed that we would do
> that, given that a major normally requires a bit more preparation. I
> see there's a separate thread for 10.6 now, that's great.
>
> Meanwhile, thanks for relabelling those PRs Michael! Let's continue
> discussing changes that should be included in 11 in this thread. I
> would give that a few weeks, at least until 10.6 is out. At that point
> we should have a clearer picture of what's left to do and how long we
> need to be ready to start the release.
>
> I am going to double check the migrate guide and see what may be
> missing there. Also, I will ask for reviews on changes needed to
> remove search(Query, Collector) (first item from my list above). We
> are only a couple of PRs away, hopefully!
>
> Most importantly, I am looking for feedback on the proposal to lower
> the minimum supported version to 9, see PR at
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16741 . Comments on the PR are
> welcome. I can also open a separate thread for that if it helps.
>
>
> Cheers
> Luca
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 11:02 PM Michael Sokolov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > BTW I am spinning up a 10.5.2 RC2 although it may be a bit
> > underutilized, we'll see
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 4:18 PM Kaival Parikh <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Mike / Robert, that makes sense to me!
> > >
> > > I started a thread about the 10.6 release (
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0w3dmwbt1tn00tb9p28wf55nj9qys77v).
> > >
> > > Oh, as I'm writing this, I see another volunteer for the 10.6 release
> :)
> > >
> > > On 2026/09/29 19:23:54 Michael Sokolov wrote:
> > > > That's fair - maybe we can have two people work in parallel on the
> two
> > > > releases??
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 3:19 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The 10.6.0 features already look quite big: its got new incremental
> > > > > update facilities and all kinds of stuff. I really don't want to
> > > > > derail or delay 11.0 as I think we should get it out too! But
> maybe we
> > > > > could get out a 10.6 in a shorter time while we tidy up for 11.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:52 PM Michael Sokolov <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, good point - there are a bunch of issues there! (in 10.6.0
> > > > > > milestone). I guess we should go through those as well to
> determine
> > > > > > which will be in scope.  Eventually we'll have to just set a
> deadline,
> > > > > > but maybe there are some there we can deprioritize?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:40 PM Kaival Parikh <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for starting this thread!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was interested in some vector search features coming out in
> Lucene 11, and was also curious about the release process (old thread for
> Lucene 11:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c8sjqg0t79zzo06j6wj3pvhdlg5wph34)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm also happy to contribute to the release process in any way
> I can!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Q: if Lucene 11 is the next release, should we also consider
> things in milestone 10.6.0 (https://github.com/apache/lucene/milestone/37
> )?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2026-09-28 21:15 UTC Michael Sokolov via dev wrote:
> > > > > > > > I'd like to restart the release thread. Kaival, I think you
> had volunteered to be a RM? But we need to figure out what to include.
> Things are moving pretty fast at the moment, it seems to me from the
> mailing list anyway. But it's a little hard to see which issues are close
> and should be included. There are 32 open PR's tagged with milestone=11.0;
> however all but two are marked "Stale". I think we should ignore the Stale
> ones by default. Of the two other ones: one is
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16034, which really should be
> marked Stale since nobody has commented since May (and it makes me doubt
> the Stale tagging, actually). So this list may not indicate the issues
> folks truly want to get target for 11.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to suggest that we go through and "untag" all the
> issues marked with 11.0 and have a period of a couple of days where
> committers can tag issues they want to see included. Other contributors
> should please refrain, but feel free to start a discussion on the mailing
> list if there is an open issue under active development that you feel is
> worth holding a release up for. If that makes sense, I can do the untagging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to