> 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 >>> >>> >>
