> "They would be able to upgrade to Solr-10.1 just > as soon as a Solr-10.1 compatable version of cuvs was available in that > new/different repo" How would they know? Are there releases for sandbox modules? Also, if I understand correctly that would require users to build the jars themselves, correct?
Also as expressed on the RC2 thread, we don't have to delay the release - I'll add a note (to solr/solr-ref-guide/modules/upgrade-notes/pages/major-changes-in-solr-10.adoc ?) about the breakage, and availability of a subsequent fix in the future. I am told we are going to have a 10.1 RC3 anyway to accommodate other fixes and possibly the Jetty upgrade. Reason I am not entirely sold on the sandbox idea is we are talking about abruptly telling production users to monitor the sandbox based on a one time occurence despite a known timeline for a fix...at a time when other popular Lucene based search engines today ship with GPU acceleration capabilities for vector search. Probably if this becomes a repeating concern we revisit this option then? @Eric Pugh <[email protected]> That's a good question. I did enquire about the possibility of expediting the fix for Lucene 10.4, however it seems it entails more work than could be accommodated in a short window of a week or two. But they are looking to release cuvs-lucene 26.12 in December which will have support through Lucene 10.5 (atleast). The planned cadence I have been made aware of is a cuvs-lucene release every two months starting December compatible with the latest Lucene version released as of the start of the release cycle of cuvs-lucene. Thanks, Rahul On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 11:53 AM Eric Pugh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2026/10/13 15:31:57 Anshum Gupta wrote: > > +1 to Hoss’s idea of moving this to the sandbox. > > > > > > Anshum Gupta > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 00:13 Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 to move to sandbox. Tiny feature should not hold us hostage > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > 12. okt. 2026 kl. 23:12 skrev Chris Hostetter < > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > The bugs found with solr/modules/cuvs in the Solr 10.1.0 RCs -- due > to > > > the > > > > module depending on a thrid-party dependency that is tightly couple > with > > > > the Lucene version, but released by a completely different > organization > > > -- > > > > is really just a new variation on the fundemental the concerns I > raise > > > > when cuvs was first added to Solr... > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17892 > > > > > > > > I get that cuvs is a valuable feature to have, for some people, on > some > > > > hardware, but I really don't think it makes sense for it to be part > of > > > the > > > > official Solr release -- not when it's depenencies are so tightly > > > > intertwined (but loosly coupled) to the specific Lucene version at a > > > very > > > > low level. > > > > > > > > As Rahul indicates -- we are now facing the exact choice I warmed > about > > > a > > > > year ago... > > > > > > > >>> In the future we (Solr) may get stuck between a rock and a hard > place > > > >>> when attempting a Lucene upgrades ... we will be forced to choose: > > > >>> > > > >>> - Let the Lucene upgrade be blocked indefinitely until a > > > >>> third-party project ( cuvs-lucene ) gets around to a > > > >>> compatible release. > > > >>> - Stop supporting modules/cuvs in what may be a MINOR Solr > > > >>> release, potentially screwing our users who have built indexes > > > >>> using that module > > > > > > > > > > > > I really think we need to move cuvs to either the solr-sandbox, or > some > > > > new purpose specific 'solr-cuvs' git repo, where it can be released > on > > > > it's own timeframe, dependent on when/how/if the upstream third-party > > > > project (cuvs-lucene) has compatible releases for the Lucene version > we > > > > are using. > > > > > > > > > > > > People who use Solr and do *not* use modules/cuvs should not have to > > > > suffer delays in getting iportant bug fixes in Solr code -- or > getting a > > > > Solr release with a Lucene version that's already outdated -- just > > > because > > > > we don't want to release a Solr version with a "broken" modules/cuvs. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Hoss > > > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Oct 2026, Rahul Goswami wrote: > > > > > > > > : Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 17:08:02 -0400 > > > > : From: Rahul Goswami <[email protected]> > > > > : Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > : To: [email protected] > > > > : Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Solr 10.1.0 RC2 > > > > : > > > > : Tried the RC. The cuvs module seems to be broken. Indexing fails > on a > > > GPU > > > > : enabled machine due to API incompatibility between cuvs-lucene and > > > Lucene > > > > : 10.4. > > > > : Currently no available compatible cuvs-lucene version exists for > Lucene > > > > : 10.4 and is expected to be available by December this year. > > > > : > > > > : If there is agreement, I could spend the effort on rolling Solr > back to > > > > : Lucene 10.3.2 where I have validated cuvs to work (which was also > the > > > > : Lucene version we were on prior to 10.4). > > > > : > > > > : Thoughts? > > > > : > > > > : 2026-10-10 20:57:58.804 WARN (qtp166454155-71) [] > > > o.e.j.e.s.ServletChannel > > > > : /solr/vectors/update > > > > : *java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'int[] > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.HnswGraph$NodesIterator.getSortedNodes(org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.HnswGraph$NodesIterator)'* > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > com.nvidia.cuvs.lucene.Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.writeGraph(Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.java:444) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > com.nvidia.cuvs.lucene.Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.writeFieldInternal(Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.java:230) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > com.nvidia.cuvs.lucene.Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.writeField(Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.java:502) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > com.nvidia.cuvs.lucene.Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.flush(Lucene99AcceleratedHNSWVectorsWriter.java:494) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.codecs.perfield.PerFieldKnnVectorsFormat$FieldsWriter.flush(PerFieldKnnVectorsFormat.java:120) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.VectorValuesConsumer.flush(VectorValuesConsumer.java:76) > > > > : at > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexingChain.flush(IndexingChain.java:305) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriterPerThread.flush(DocumentsWriterPerThread.java:456) > > > > : at > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.doFlush(DocumentsWriter.java:502) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.maybeFlush(DocumentsWriter.java:456) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flushAllThreads(DocumentsWriter.java:649) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.prepareCommitInternal(IndexWriter.java:3712) > > > > : at > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.commitInternal(IndexWriter.java:4160) > > > > : at > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.commit(IndexWriter.java:4122) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.solr.update.DirectUpdateHandler2.commit(DirectUpdateHandler2.java:872) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.solr.update.processor.RunUpdateProcessorFactory$RunUpdateProcessor.processCommit(RunUpdateProcessorFactory.java:100) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.solr.update.processor.UpdateRequestProcessor.processCommit(UpdateRequestProcessor.java:66) > > > > : at > > > > : > > > > org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.doLocalCommit(DistributedUpdateProcessor > > > > : > > > > : - Rahul > > > > : > > > > : On Sat, Oct 10, 2026 at 5:57 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > : > > > > : > The changelog lists "Dependency Upgrades (61 changes)" > > > > : > I thought we were to hand edit and de-duplicate that list. > > > > : > > > > > : > PS: Jetty 12.1.14 hits branch_10x soon, hope it can make it if > > > there's a > > > > : > respin. > > > > : > > > > > : > Jan > > > > : > > > > > : > > 10. okt. 2026 kl. 15:48 skrev Andrzej Białecki <[email protected] > >: > > > > : > > > > > > : > > Please vote for release candidate 2 for Solr 10.1.0 > > > > : > > > > > > : > > The artifacts can be downloaded from: > > > > : > > > > > > : > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/solr/solr-10.1.0-RC2-rev-dfda5e1d4821958e60d13aa5ce3a0d4992319ed1 > > > > : > > > > > > : > > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: > > > > : > > > > > > : > > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ > > > > : > > > > > > : > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/solr/solr-10.1.0-RC2-rev-dfda5e1d4821958e60d13aa5ce3a0d4992319ed1 > > > > : > > > > > > : > > You can build a release-candidate of the official docker images > > > (full & > > > > : > slim) using the following command: > > > > : > > > > > > : > > SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER= > > > > : > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/solr/solr-10.1.0-RC2-rev-dfda5e1d4821958e60d13aa5ce3a0d4992319ed1/solr > > > > : > && \ > > > > : > > docker build > > > > : > $SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER/10.1.0/docker/Dockerfile.official-full \ > > > > : > > --build-arg SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER=$SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER \ > > > > : > > -t solr-rc:10.1.0-2 && \ > > > > : > > docker build > > > > : > $SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER/10.1.0/docker/Dockerfile.official-slim \ > > > > : > > --build-arg SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER=$SOLR_DOWNLOAD_SERVER \ > > > > : > > -t solr-rc:10.1.0-2-slim > > > > : > > > > > > : > > The vote will be open for 72 hours (not including the Sunday > and > > > > : > Columbus Day), i.e. until 2026-10-15 15:00 UTC. > > > > : > > > > > > : > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > : > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > : > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > : > > > > > > : > > Here is my +1 > > > > : > > ---- > > > > : > > > > > > : > > Cheers, > > > > : > > Andrzej > > > > : > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > : > > 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] > > > > > > > > > What about highlighting to that community that we need a 10.4 release > ASAP, and seeing if that changes their timeline. Judinging from the github > issue, they are filling in a number of missing verion releases, which of > couse makes it more work then just cutting a 10.4 release. If they > committed to releasing a 10.4 in the next week, would that change things > for us? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
