Hi all, I agree with Ferenc that going with 4.1.0 seems very reasonable.
Therefore, I believe our priority should be conducting compatibility testing first to check for any issues. Based on the test results, we can then make a clear decision on whether to proceed with 4.1.0 or go with 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2. 2026년 6월 29일 (월) 오후 12:06, Chanhae Oh <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > Hi all, > > Initially, I thought aligning with each Flink version — 5.0.0-2.1 and > 6.0.0-2.2 — made sense. > > However, as Ferenc pointed out, given that the Source/Sink API usage > should preserve backward compatibility, 4.1.0-{flink_version} seems like > the more appropriate approach. > > That said, if any compatibility issues are found during testing, then > going with 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2 would be the right call. > > Roc, Sumin, and Chanbin — do you have any thoughts on the testing plan, or > any other considerations to share? > > Thanks, > Chanhae Oh > > > 2026. 6. 27. 오후 7:43, Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> 작성: > > > > Hi, Ferenc, > > > > Thank you very much for the detailed explanation and additional context. > > > >> If there are no actual compatibility > >> issues in the JDBC connector (I'm not sure, cause I am not really > familiar > > with > >> the code itself, but based on my own experience, I doubt) > > > > In my limited reading, This may be largely a retrospective question, > > and arriving at a precise conclusion in advance is challenging. > > > > And please let me to summarize and simplify this as much as possible—your > > suggestion is essentially to publish only two versions along these lines, > > v3.4.0 for the 1.20.x series > > v4.1.0 for the 2.x series > > > > Hope I get your meaning. > > > > Thanks, > > Yuepeng Pan > > > > Ferenc Csaky <[email protected]> 于2026年6月27日周六 03:58写道： > > > >> Do we have specific backward compatibility risks in this case? > >> > >> The connector dev docs [1] have guidance about Flink version support, > and > >> the > >> goal is to support the latest 2 minor Flink version. Ofc, if there is > >> demand, it > >> makes sense to support or release for older versions, but in this case I > >> feel > >> there is no real reason to do separate major versions for 2.1 and 2.2. > >> > >> Especially that most connectors now are using the Source and Sink APIs, > so > >> technically it mostly should just work with newer Flink versions. For > >> example I > >> am using the 4.0.1-2.0 Kafka connector and 4.0.0-2.0 JDBC connector with > >> Flink > >> 2.2 without any problems since 2.2 was released. > >> > >> (And I guess pretty much everybody else, who does not have their own > fork > >> and > >> connector releases.) > >> > >> Connector maintenance is a pain point in general and most of them are > >> lagging > >> behind Flink versions. Getting a JDBC connector release for 2.2 was > >> discussed > >> 4,5 months ago [2]. So I do not think it would be a good idea to > introduce > >> new major connector versions and increase the support burden further > unless > >> there is a very good reason to do so. If there are no actual > compatibility > >> issues in the JDBC connector (I'm not sure, cause I am not really > familiar > >> with > >> the code itself, but based on my own experience, I doubt), I am -1 on > >> v5.0.0-2.1 > >> and v6.0.0-2.2. > >> > >> Instead, I would suggest a 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2. Or, if on the > JDBC-side > >> there is no backward-incompatible feature shipped since 4.0.0, then > >> 4.1.0-2.1 and 4.1.0-2.2 would be even better, cause then the 4.0.0 > reaches > >> EoL. > >> > >> Best, > >> Ferenc > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/FLINK/pages/231116690/Externalized+Connector+development#ExternalizedConnectordevelopment-Support > >> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6gpkwlcyk5qf933mqd0fq9fo58hx21t > >> > >> > >>> On Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 16:57, Yuepeng Pan < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Ferenc Csaky. > >>> > >>> Thanks so much for your feedback. > >>> > >>> Attached[1] is our earlier discussion on version numbering—it might > help > >>> clarify part > >>> of your question and provide some historical context around this > release. > >>> The email[1] focuses primarily on version naming and continuity, > >>> rather than compatibility (likely because maintaining sequential > >>> version numbers mitigates most backward-compatibility risks). > >>> > >>> [1]https://lists.apache.org/thread/4jr8h98qr67l9wx8770sq8c0r44zpk1y > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Yuepeng Pan > >>> > >>> > >>> Ferenc Csaky <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 22:41写道： > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for driving this! > >>>> > >>>> I see that every Flink minor version will have a major connector > >> version. > >>>> Do we > >>>> have any specific reason to do so? The different versions ship > >> backward- > >>>> incompatible changes between those Flink versions? Otherwise I do not > >> see a > >>>> reason to do this, that's why I'm asking. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Ferenc > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 02:52, 주수민 <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Dev, > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a progress update and plan sync for the upcoming > >>>>> flink-connector-jdbc releases > >>>>> targeting the following versions: > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] jdbc-3.4.0 (for Flink 1.20) > >>>>> [2] jdbc-5.0.0 (for Flink 2.1) > >>>>> [3] jdbc-6.0.0 (for Flink 2.2) > >>>>> > >>>>> We have reviewed and merged critical, high-priority PRs, and we are > >> now > >>>>> moving forward > >>>>> to build the RC (Release Candidate) in the next phase. > >>>>> > >>>>> [Progress] > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Jira version tags have been created (jdbc-3.4.0, jdbc-3.5.0, > >>>>> jdbc-5.0.0, jdbc-6.0.0). > >>>>> Note: jdbc-3.5.0 is prepared as a reserve version to accommodate > >>>>> potential follow-up > >>>>> patches after the initial jdbc-3.4.0 release, if needed. > >>>>> 2. The major feature patch (PR #180 [4]) has been merged. > >>>>> 3. PR #198 [5] was submitted as a follow-up to the stale PR > >> #174[6] > >>>>> (FLINK-38046). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33463?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-3.4.0 > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33463?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-5.0.0 > >>>>> [3] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-39974?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-6.0.0 > >>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/180 > >>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/198 > >>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/174 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Sumin Joo > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
