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 >>>> >>>> >>>
