Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Thanks for the information! On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:07 PM Gyula Fóra wrote: > https://flink.apache.org/downloads/#update-policy-for-old-releases > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:47 PM Jing Ge > wrote: > > > +1 Thanks! I have an off-track question: where could we find the > reference > > that the community only supports the last 2 minor releases? Thanks! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Jing > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:13 PM Ahmed Hamdy > wrote: > > > > > Makes sense, > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > Best Regards > > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 14:07, Gyula Fóra > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ahmed! > > > > > > > > As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims > > to > > > > make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most > > users > > > > are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a > > service > > > > it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at > the > > > > same time. > > > > > > > > Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are > older > > > than > > > > the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community). > > However > > > > the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most > > > > operator features work across several Flink versions at the same > time. > > > > > > > > Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to > > > previous > > > > Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that > as > > > > long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the > latest > > > > stability / deployment improvements but can still provide > compatibility > > > for > > > > their users for older Flink job versions. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Gyula, > > > > > +1 for the proposal in general. > > > > > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones > > > > supported > > > > > by the community? > > > > > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of > > > > support, > > > > > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes > > Operator > > > > > > version > > > > > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this > > > proposal > > > > > to > > > > > > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean > > for > > > > 2.0 > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the > > operator > > > > as > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we > > can > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look > into > > > that > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels < > > > > m...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of > time > > to > > > > > > migrate > > > > > > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > > > > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise < > > > t...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > > > > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised > the > > > > > question > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last > > > release. > > > > I > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize > this > > > > > before > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > next > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
https://flink.apache.org/downloads/#update-policy-for-old-releases On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:47 PM Jing Ge wrote: > +1 Thanks! I have an off-track question: where could we find the reference > that the community only supports the last 2 minor releases? Thanks! > > > Best Regards, > Jing > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:13 PM Ahmed Hamdy wrote: > > > Makes sense, > > Thanks for the clarification. > > Best Regards > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 14:07, Gyula Fóra wrote: > > > > > Hi Ahmed! > > > > > > As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims > to > > > make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most > users > > > are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a > service > > > it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at the > > > same time. > > > > > > Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are older > > than > > > the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community). > However > > > the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most > > > operator features work across several Flink versions at the same time. > > > > > > Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to > > previous > > > Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that as > > > long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the latest > > > stability / deployment improvements but can still provide compatibility > > for > > > their users for older Flink job versions. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gyula > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Gyula, > > > > +1 for the proposal in general. > > > > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones > > > supported > > > > by the community? > > > > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of > > > support, > > > > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? > > > > Best Regards > > > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes > Operator > > > > > version > > > > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this > > proposal > > > > to > > > > > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean > for > > > 2.0 > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the > operator > > > as > > > > > well > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we > can > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into > > that > > > > and > > > > > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels < > > > m...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time > to > > > > > migrate > > > > > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > > > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise < > > t...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > > > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the > > > > question > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last > > release. > > > I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this > > > > before > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink > > versions > > > > > since > > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a > lot > > of > > > > > > > backward > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 Thanks! I have an off-track question: where could we find the reference that the community only supports the last 2 minor releases? Thanks! Best Regards, Jing On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:13 PM Ahmed Hamdy wrote: > Makes sense, > Thanks for the clarification. > Best Regards > Ahmed Hamdy > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 14:07, Gyula Fóra wrote: > > > Hi Ahmed! > > > > As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims to > > make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most users > > are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a service > > it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at the > > same time. > > > > Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are older > than > > the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community). However > > the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most > > operator features work across several Flink versions at the same time. > > > > Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to > previous > > Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that as > > long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the latest > > stability / deployment improvements but can still provide compatibility > for > > their users for older Flink job versions. > > > > Cheers, > > Gyula > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Gyula, > > > +1 for the proposal in general. > > > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones > > supported > > > by the community? > > > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of > > support, > > > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? > > > Best Regards > > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > > > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator > > > > version > > > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this > proposal > > > to > > > > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for > > 2.0 > > > > > simply > > > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator > > as > > > > well > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can > > > > provide > > > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into > that > > > and > > > > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels < > > m...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to > > > > migrate > > > > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise < > t...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the > > > question > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last > release. > > I > > > > > would > > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this > > > before > > > > > the > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink > versions > > > > since > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot > of > > > > > > backward > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and > also > > > > adds > > > > > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance > > here > > > > that > > > > > > > > allows us > > > > > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support > all > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > all > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Makes sense, Thanks for the clarification. Best Regards Ahmed Hamdy On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 14:07, Gyula Fóra wrote: > Hi Ahmed! > > As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims to > make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most users > are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a service > it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at the > same time. > > Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are older than > the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community). However > the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most > operator features work across several Flink versions at the same time. > > Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to previous > Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that as > long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the latest > stability / deployment improvements but can still provide compatibility for > their users for older Flink job versions. > > Cheers, > Gyula > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy wrote: > > > Thanks Gyula, > > +1 for the proposal in general. > > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones > supported > > by the community? > > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of > support, > > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? > > Best Regards > > Ahmed Hamdy > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator > > > version > > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this proposal > > to > > > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for > 2.0 > > > > simply > > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator > as > > > well > > > > > :) > > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can > > > provide > > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that > > and > > > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to > > > migrate > > > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the > > question > > > > of > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. > I > > > > would > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this > > before > > > > the > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions > > > since > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of > > > > > backward > > > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also > > > adds > > > > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance > here > > > that > > > > > > > allows us > > > > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all > > > > > features > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to > > > support > > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last > 4 > > > > stable > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support > Flink > > > > > > 1.14-1.17 > > > > > > > (and > > > > > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we wou
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Hi Ahmed! As I mentioned in the first email, the Flink Operator explicitly aims to make running Flink and Flink Platforms on Kubernetes easy. As most users are platform teams supporting Flink inside a company or running a service it's basically always required to support several Flink versions at the same time. Enterprise users are in many cases using Flink versions that are older than the last 2 minor releases (currently supported by the community). However the operator itself is somewhat independent of Flink itself, and most operator features work across several Flink versions at the same time. Based on this it's relatively easy for us to support deploying to previous Flink minor versions (within some reasonable limit). This means that as long as platform teams keep the operator up-to-date they get the latest stability / deployment improvements but can still provide compatibility for their users for older Flink job versions. Cheers, Gyula On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ahmed Hamdy wrote: > Thanks Gyula, > +1 for the proposal in general. > May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones supported > by the community? > for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of support, > why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? > Best Regards > Ahmed Hamdy > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator > > version > > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this proposal > to > > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > > > Best, > > > Yang > > > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 > > > simply > > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as > > well > > > > :) > > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can > > provide > > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that > and > > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to > > migrate > > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the > question > > > of > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I > > > would > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this > before > > > the > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions > > since > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of > > > > backward > > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also > > adds > > > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here > > that > > > > > > allows us > > > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all > > > > features > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to > > support > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 > > > stable > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink > > > > > 1.14-1.17 > > > > > > (and > > > > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would > drop > > > > 1.14 > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means > about 2 > > > > year > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Thanks Gyula, +1 for the proposal in general. May I ask why are we interested in supporting more than the ones supported by the community? for example I understand all versions prior to 1.16 are now out of support, why should we tie our compatibility 4 versions behind? Best Regards Ahmed Hamdy On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 12:18, ConradJam wrote: > +1 > > Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > > > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator > version > > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this proposal to > > reduce maintenance burden. > > > > Best, > > Yang > > > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > > > Best, > > > Biao Geng > > > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 > > simply > > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as > well > > > :) > > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can > provide > > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that and > > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to > migrate > > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra < > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question > > of > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I > > would > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before > > the > > > > next > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions > since > > > > Flink > > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of > > > backward > > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also > adds > > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here > that > > > > > allows us > > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all > > > features > > > > > for > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to > support > > > > > several > > > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 > > stable > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink > > > > 1.14-1.17 > > > > > (and > > > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop > > > 1.14 > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 > > > year > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 Yang Wang 于2023年9月14日周四 16:15写道： > Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator version > along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this proposal to > reduce maintenance burden. > > Best, > Yang > > Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > > > +1 for the proposal. > > > > Best, > > Biao Geng > > > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 > simply > > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as well > > :) > > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can provide > > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that and > > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to migrate > > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás < > matyas.orh...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question > of > > > > Flink > > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I > would > > > > like to > > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before > the > > > next > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since > > > Flink > > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of > > backward > > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that > > > > allows us > > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all > > features > > > > for > > > > > > all > > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support > > > > several > > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 > stable > > > > Flink > > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink > > > 1.14-1.17 > > > > (and > > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop > > 1.14 > > > > > > support > > > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 > > year > > > > > > support > > > > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Since the users could always use the old Flink Kubernetes Operator version along with old Flink versions, I am totally in favor of this proposal to reduce maintenance burden. Best, Yang Biao Geng 于2023年9月6日周三 18:15写道： > +1 for the proposal. > > Best, > Biao Geng > > Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > > > @Zhanghao Chen: > > > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 simply > > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as well > :) > > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can provide > > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that and > > tackle the question there independently. > > > > Gyula > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels > wrote: > > > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to migrate > > > to the next Flink version. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of > > > Flink > > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I would > > > like to > > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the > > next > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since > > Flink > > > > > 1.13. > > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of > backward > > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > > > > > considerable > > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that > > > allows us > > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all > features > > > for > > > > > all > > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support > > > several > > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable > > > Flink > > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink > > 1.14-1.17 > > > (and > > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop > 1.14 > > > > > support > > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 > year > > > > > support > > > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 for the proposal. Best, Biao Geng Gyula Fóra 于2023年9月6日周三 16:10写道： > @Zhanghao Chen: > > I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 simply > because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as well :) > I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can provide > across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that and > tackle the question there independently. > > Gyula > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: > > > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to migrate > > to the next Flink version. > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > > > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of > > Flink > > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I would > > like to > > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the > next > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since > Flink > > > > 1.13. > > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > > > > considerable > > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that > > allows us > > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features > > for > > > > all > > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support > > several > > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable > > Flink > > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink > 1.14-1.17 > > (and > > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 > > > > support > > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year > > > > support > > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
@Zhanghao Chen: I am not completely sure at this point what this will mean for 2.0 simply because I am also not sure what that will mean for the operator as well :) I think this will depend on the compatibility guarantees we can provide across Flink major versions in general. We have to look into that and tackle the question there independently. Gyula On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: > +1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to migrate > to the next Flink version. > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > > > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of > Flink > > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I would > like to > > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next > > > > release. > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink > > > 1.13. > > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > > > considerable > > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that > allows us > > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features > for > > > all > > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support > several > > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable > Flink > > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 > (and > > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 > > > support > > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year > > > support > > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 Sounds good! Four releases give a decent amount of time to migrate to the next Flink version. On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:33 PM Őrhidi Mátyás wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > > > +1, thanks for the proposal > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra wrote: > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink > > > version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to > > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next > > > release. > > > > > > Background: > > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink > > 1.13. > > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > > considerable > > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us > > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for > > all > > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > > > Proposal: > > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several > > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink > > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and > > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 > > support > > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year > > support > > > for each Flink version. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gyula > > > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:03 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > +1, thanks for the proposal > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra wrote: > > > Hi All! > > > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink > > version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to > > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next > > release. > > > > Background: > > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink > 1.13. > > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds > considerable > > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us > > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for > all > > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > > > Proposal: > > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several > > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink > > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and > > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 > support > > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year > support > > for each Flink version. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Gyula > > >
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1, thanks for the proposal On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:13 AM Gyula Fóra wrote: > Hi All! > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink > version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next > release. > > Background: > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink 1.13. > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds considerable > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for all > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > Proposal: > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 support > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year support > for each Flink version. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gyula >
回复: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
+1 for the proposal. A side question: how will we handle a major Flink version given that Flink 2.0 is around the corner. Best, Zhanghao Chen 发件人: Gyula Fóra 发送时间: 2023年9月5日 20:12 收件人: dev 抄送: Maximilian Michels ; Thomas Weise ; Márton Balassi ; morh...@apache.org 主题: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy Hi All! @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next release. Background: Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink 1.13. While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds considerable time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for all Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. Proposal: Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 support and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year support for each Flink version. What do you think? Cheers, Gyula
Re: [DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Sounds good to me, thanks. On Tue, Sep 5, 2023, 8:12 AM Gyula Fóra wrote: > Hi All! > > @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink > version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to > open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next > release. > > Background: > Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink 1.13. > While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward > compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds considerable > time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us > to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. > > In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for all > Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. > > Proposal: > Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several > versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink > minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and > drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 support > and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year support > for each Flink version. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gyula >
[DISSCUSS] Kubernetes Operator Flink Version Support Policy
Hi All! @Maximilian Michels has raised the question of Flink version support in the operator before the last release. I would like to open this discussion publicly so we can finalize this before the next release. Background: Currently the Flink Operator supports all Flink versions since Flink 1.13. While this is great for the users, it introduces a lot of backward compatibility related code in the operator logic and also adds considerable time to the CI. We should strike a reasonable balance here that allows us to move forward and eliminate some of this tech debt. In the current model it is also impossible to support all features for all Flink versions which leads to some confusion over time. Proposal: Since it's a key feature of the kubernetes operator to support several versions at the same time, I propose to support the last 4 stable Flink minor versions. Currently this would mean to support Flink 1.14-1.17 (and drop 1.13 support). When Flink 1.18 is released we would drop 1.14 support and so on. Given the Flink release cadence this means about 2 year support for each Flink version. What do you think? Cheers, Gyula
