Thanks Chanhae, Sumin for the comments, Rui for the clarification. After reviewing the Kafka connector release lineage and current status, IIUC, we'd plan to roll out *v5.0 (targeting Flink 2.1)* and *v3.4 (targeting Flink 1.20)*.
Welcome *Chanhae* and *Sumin* to this release cycle! Looking forward to more feedback! Best regards, Yuepeng Pan Rui Fan <[email protected]> 于2026年6月15日周一 18:26写道： > Thanks Yuepeng for driving the release! > > About Versioning Strategy, we could refer to the release of Kafka or other > connectors. > > Best, > Rui > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 12:26 PM 주수민 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Yuepeng, > > > > Thank you for initiating this discussion. > > > > Personally, I agree with Chanhae's thoughts on the versioning strategy > and > > focusing on the Flink 1.20 (LTS) / 2.x lines. > > I would love to participate in this release effort and help out if my > > contribution is welcome. > > > > Thank you again for driving this forward! > > > > Best regards, > > Sumin Joo > > > > 2026년 6월 9일 (화) 오전 11:56, Chanhae Oh <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > > > Hi Yuepeng, > > > > > > Thank you for starting this discussion. I'd like to share my thoughts > on > > > the topics you raised. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > *1. Versioning Strategy for Flink 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3* > > > > > > A versioning scheme such as {Connector Version}-{Flink Version}, > similar > > to > > > what users often see in Maven repositories, would provide better > clarity > > > and consistency. > > > However, I think it would be even more beneficial if such a convention > > were > > > adopted consistently across other connector repositories as well. > > > For the next release, I would prefer to continue with the existing > > > sequential versioning scheme to minimize disruption. > > > At the same time, it may be worth discussing a coordinated naming > > > convention across connector repositories for future releases. > > > > > > > > > *2. Support Policy for Flink 2.0* > > > > > > Personally, I don't think continued support for Flink 2.0 is > particularly > > > necessary. > > > Many improvements and new features have already been introduced in > later > > > Flink releases. > > > Additionally, when comparing the user bases of Flink 1.20 and Flink > 2.0, > > I > > > would expect the Flink 1.20 (LTS) line to have broader adoption and > > remain > > > more important for long-term support. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Also, if there is anything I can help with for the upcoming release > > effort, > > > I would be happy to contribute and support the work as much as I can. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Chanhae Oh > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:24 AM Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Devs, > > > > > > > > Following the release of v3.3 (for Flink 1.20.x) and v4.0 (for Flink > > > > 2.0.x), the Flink JDBC Connector has not had a new release for quite > > some > > > > time. During this period, Flink itself has released versions 2.1, > 2.2, > > > and > > > > 2.3 (upcoming). > > > > > > > > I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the next group of > Flink > > > > JDBC Connector releases. > > > > > > > > 0. I’d like to hear more thoughts on the next release > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on a quick review of the current repository status, I have > > > identified > > > > several topics that need to be discussed before the release plan: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Versioning Strategy for Flink 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 > > > > Do we need a new branching/versioning scheme to maintain patches and > > > > updates for these specific Flink versions? > > > > > > > > Option A: Semantic versioning tied to Flink (e.g., v2.1-1.0) > > > > Format: {Flink_Version}-{Connector_Version}(e.g., 2.1-1.0). > > > > Pros: It is immediately clear which Flink version the connector > > supports. > > > > Cons: This deviates from our historical naming convention and might > > cause > > > > confusion for users and developers. > > > > > > > > Option B: Continuing sequential versioning (e.g., v5.x, v6.x) > > > > Mapping: v5.xfor Flink 2.1, v6.xfor Flink 2.2, etc. > > > > Pros: Consistent with the previous naming scheme (v3.x, v4.x). > > > > Cons: It is less intuitive to map connector versions to Flink > versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note on LTS: Regardless of the outcome for the 2.x series, continuing > > to > > > > use the v3.xseries for the long-term support (LTS) Flink 1.20.x line > > may > > > > remain a solid choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Support Policy for Flink 2.0 > > > > Do we still need to support the JDBC connector for Flink 2.0? Since > the > > > > latest Flink version is 2.3 (upcoming), Flink 2.0 is now three minor > > > > versions behind. > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'd be willing to volunteer as a Release Manager (RM) for the > next > > > > release of Flink JDBC connector. > > > > I also look forward to collaborating with other interested > contributors > > > to > > > > drive this effort forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much. And looking forward to your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Yuepeng Pan > > > > > > > > > >
