Thanks for the information!

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:07 PM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://flink.apache.org/downloads/#update-policy-for-old-releases
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:47 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Thanks! I have an off-track question: where could we find the
> reference
> > that the community only supports the last 2 minor releases? Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Jing
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:13 PM Ahmed Hamdy <hamdy10...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Makes sense,
> > > Thanks for the clarification.
> > > Best Regards
> > > Ahmed Hamdy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 14:07, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ahmed!
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims
> > to
> > > > make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most
> > users
> > > > are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a
> > service
> > > > it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at
> the
> > > > same time.
> > > >
> > > > Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are
> older
> > > than
> > > > the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community).
> > However
> > > > the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most
> > > > operator features work across several Flink versions at the same
> time.
> > > >
> > > > Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to
> > > previous
> > > > Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that
> as
> > > > long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the
> latest
> > > > stability / deployment improvements but can still provide
> compatibility
> > > for
> > > > their users for older Flink job versions.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Gyula
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy <hamdy10...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Gyula,
> > > > > +1 for the proposal in general.
> > > > > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones
> > > > supported
> > > > > by the community?
> > > > > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of
> > > > support,
> > > > > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind?
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > Ahmed Hamdy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam <jam.gz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yang Wang <wangyang0...@apache.org> 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes
> > Operator
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this
> > > proposal
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > reduce maintenance burden.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Yang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Biao Geng <biaoge...@gmail.com> 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Biao Geng
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean
> > for
> > > > 2.0
> > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the
> > operator
> > > > as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we
> > can
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look
> into
> > > that
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > tackle the question there independently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gyula
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels <
> > > > m...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of
> time
> > to
> > > > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > to the next Flink version.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás <
> > > > > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise <
> > > t...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra <
> > > > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> has raised
> the
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last
> > > release.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize
> this
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Background:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink
> > > versions
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.13.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > > > backward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic
> and
> > > also
> > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > > > > considerable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable
> balance
> > > > here
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > allows us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech
> debt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to
> support
> > > all
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over
> > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator
> > to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the
> > > last
> > > > 4
> > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to
> support
> > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > > 1.14-1.17
> > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we
> > > would
> > > > > drop
> > > > > > > > 1.14
> > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this
> means
> > > > > about 2
> > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for each Flink version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to