Talat, thanks for working on the 2.2 support. Please follow the previous PR regarding the version upgrade. Similarly, we want 4 or 5 commits that should be preserved via `Rebase and merge` https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13714/commits
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:26 PM Talat Uyarer via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought as > well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a > significant change for the Flink ecosystem. > > If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0 support > and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the recent > Iceberg 1.11.0 release (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476), so > I will rebase and refresh that work. > > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3 >> >> That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an >> iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1 >> Iceberg release. >> >> We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark >> them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of >> truth. >> >> [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations. >>> >>> I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0 >>> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose >>> dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0. >>> >>> So here is the revised support matrix. >>> 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1 >>> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3 >>> >>> Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted >>> regular cadence. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support. >>>> >>>> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to >>>> share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful >>>> for this discussion. >>>> >>>> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and >>>> during this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community >>>> is currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has >>>> effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream >>>> support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so >>>> integration work cannot proceed at this stage. >>>> >>>> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several >>>> Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0 >>>> and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current >>>> maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem >>>> compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0. >>>> >>>> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach: >>>> >>>> >>>> - Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink >>>> Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg >>>> + >>>> Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support; >>>> - Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with >>>> integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a >>>> follow-up milestone; >>>> - Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance >>>> resources too thin. >>>> >>>> >>>> That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall >>>> maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward >>>> to hearing further thoughts from the community. >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven Wu <[email protected]> 于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16517> about how we want to >>>>> manage Flink version support for the next release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg >>>>> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR >>>>> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the >>>>> dev list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The main points raised so far are: >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS >>>>> release and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink >>>>> version, Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20. >>>>> 2. >>>>> >>>>> Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work >>>>> for Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and >>>>> Flink >>>>> 2.3 is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip >>>>> 2.2 >>>>> and move directly to 2.3 instead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1, >>>>> and 2.3 in the next Iceberg release:12.0 release. >>>>> >>>>> - Keep Flink 1.20 for longer and drop Flink 2.0 instead. >>>>> - Jump directly to Flink 2.3 and skip 2.2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do others think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>
