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 >> >> >
