Hi devs,
Following up on this discussion, as we are now moving forward with the release plan, we would like to request the creation of the following Jira version tags for ticket management: Primary releases: - jdbc-3.5.0 (for Flink 1.20.x) - jdbc-5.0.0 (for Flink 2.1.x) - jdbc-6.0.0 (for Flink 2.2.x) Reserve tags (in case additional patch releases are needed): - jdbc-5.1.0 (for Flink 2.1.x) - jdbc-6.1.0 (for Flink 2.2.x) Could a PMC member or someone with the necessary Jira administrator permissions help create these version tags? Thank you in advance for your support! Best regards, ChanHae Oh > 2026. 6. 16. 오전 11:00, 오찬빈 <[email protected]> 작성: > > Hi Yuepeng and Devs, > > Thanks Yuepeng for driving this discussion and volunteering as the RM. > > I agree with Rui and Chanhae's points regarding the versioning strategy. > Referring to how Kafka or other external connectors manage their versions > (e.g., {Connector Version}-{Flink Version} or clear cross-reference) would > definitely improve user clarity in the long run. > > For the upcoming release, continuing with the existing sequential scheme to > avoid disruption while aligning on a unified convention for future roadmap > items seems like a pragmatic approach. > > Also, I agree that dropping support for Flink 2.0 makes sense, as focusing >> on the Flink 1.20 (LTS) and the latest 2.x lines will provide more value to >> the community. >> >> Best regards, >> ChanBin Oh >> >> 2026년 6월 16일 (화) 오전 9:47, Chanhae Oh <[email protected]>님이 작성: >> >> >> 나의 iPhone에서 보냄 >> >> 전달된 메시지 시작: >> >> *보낸 사람:* Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> >> *날짜:* 2026년 6월 15일 오후 11시 2분 23초 GMT+9 >> *받는 사람:* [email protected] >> *제목:* *Re: [DISCUSS] Release Plan for the Next Group of Flink JDBC >> Connector Versions* >> *답장 받을 사람:* [email protected] >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >>
