Hi Yuepeng, Thanks for driving this. The release plan and sequential versioning scheme sound good to me. I'm also +1 to drop Flink 2.0 support.
Best, Jark On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 18:40, Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Chanhae for driving this. > > Please let me clarify the tags: > > IIUC, > > > 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) > > may be adjusted as following: > > Primary releases: > - 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) > - jdbc-3.5.0 (for Flink 1.20.x) > > Because: > > - The 'jdbc-3.4.0' tag was created already for managing tickets. > - The voting for Flink 2.3.0 has passed, we propose including *JDBC > Connector 6.0 (for Flink 2.2.x)* in this release cycle as well. > > > BTW, we currently have four volunteers supporting this release, so manpower > should be sufficient. > > - Yuepeng Pan > - Sumin Joo > - Chanhae Oh > - Chanbin O > > > Looking forward your help and thoughts. > > Best regards, > Yuepeng Pan > > Chanhae Oh <[email protected]> 于2026年6月18日周四 18:18写道： > > > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
