Thank you everyone for the quick responses, appreciate it! Targeting 4.1.0 for the 2.x line and bumping 5.0.0 only if the JDBC-side changes justify it makes perfect sense.
Best, Ferenc On Monday, June 29th, 2026 at 06:19, 오찬빈 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I agree with Ferenc that going with 4.1.0 seems very reasonable. > > Therefore, I believe our priority should be conducting compatibility > testing first to check for any issues. Based on the test results, we can > then make a clear decision on whether to proceed with 4.1.0 or go with > 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2. > > 2026년 6월 29일 (월) 오후 12:06, Chanhae Oh <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Initially, I thought aligning with each Flink version — 5.0.0-2.1 and > > 6.0.0-2.2 — made sense. > > > > However, as Ferenc pointed out, given that the Source/Sink API usage > > should preserve backward compatibility, 4.1.0-{flink_version} seems like > > the more appropriate approach. > > > > That said, if any compatibility issues are found during testing, then > > going with 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2 would be the right call. > > > > Roc, Sumin, and Chanbin — do you have any thoughts on the testing plan, or > > any other considerations to share? > > > > Thanks, > > Chanhae Oh > > > > > 2026. 6. 27. 오후 7:43, Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> 작성: > > > > > > Hi, Ferenc, > > > > > > Thank you very much for the detailed explanation and additional context. > > > > > >> If there are no actual compatibility > > >> issues in the JDBC connector (I'm not sure, cause I am not really > > familiar > > > with > > >> the code itself, but based on my own experience, I doubt) > > > > > > In my limited reading, This may be largely a retrospective question, > > > and arriving at a precise conclusion in advance is challenging. > > > > > > And please let me to summarize and simplify this as much as possible—your > > > suggestion is essentially to publish only two versions along these lines, > > > v3.4.0 for the 1.20.x series > > > v4.1.0 for the 2.x series > > > > > > Hope I get your meaning. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yuepeng Pan > > > > > > Ferenc Csaky <[email protected]> 于2026年6月27日周六 03:58写道： > > > > > >> Do we have specific backward compatibility risks in this case? > > >> > > >> The connector dev docs [1] have guidance about Flink version support, > > and > > >> the > > >> goal is to support the latest 2 minor Flink version. Ofc, if there is > > >> demand, it > > >> makes sense to support or release for older versions, but in this case I > > >> feel > > >> there is no real reason to do separate major versions for 2.1 and 2.2. > > >> > > >> Especially that most connectors now are using the Source and Sink APIs, > > so > > >> technically it mostly should just work with newer Flink versions. For > > >> example I > > >> am using the 4.0.1-2.0 Kafka connector and 4.0.0-2.0 JDBC connector with > > >> Flink > > >> 2.2 without any problems since 2.2 was released. > > >> > > >> (And I guess pretty much everybody else, who does not have their own > > fork > > >> and > > >> connector releases.) > > >> > > >> Connector maintenance is a pain point in general and most of them are > > >> lagging > > >> behind Flink versions. Getting a JDBC connector release for 2.2 was > > >> discussed > > >> 4,5 months ago [2]. So I do not think it would be a good idea to > > introduce > > >> new major connector versions and increase the support burden further > > unless > > >> there is a very good reason to do so. If there are no actual > > compatibility > > >> issues in the JDBC connector (I'm not sure, cause I am not really > > familiar > > >> with > > >> the code itself, but based on my own experience, I doubt), I am -1 on > > >> v5.0.0-2.1 > > >> and v6.0.0-2.2. > > >> > > >> Instead, I would suggest a 5.0.0-2.1 and 5.0.0-2.2. Or, if on the > > JDBC-side > > >> there is no backward-incompatible feature shipped since 4.0.0, then > > >> 4.1.0-2.1 and 4.1.0-2.2 would be even better, cause then the 4.0.0 > > reaches > > >> EoL. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Ferenc > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/FLINK/pages/231116690/Externalized+Connector+development#ExternalizedConnectordevelopment-Support > > >> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o6gpkwlcyk5qf933mqd0fq9fo58hx21t > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 16:57, Yuepeng Pan < > > [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, Ferenc Csaky. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks so much for your feedback. > > >>> > > >>> Attached[1] is our earlier discussion on version numbering—it might > > help > > >>> clarify part > > >>> of your question and provide some historical context around this > > release. > > >>> The email[1] focuses primarily on version naming and continuity, > > >>> rather than compatibility (likely because maintaining sequential > > >>> version numbers mitigates most backward-compatibility risks). > > >>> > > >>> [1]https://lists.apache.org/thread/4jr8h98qr67l9wx8770sq8c0r44zpk1y > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Yuepeng Pan > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ferenc Csaky <[email protected]> 于2026年6月25日周四 22:41写道： > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for driving this! > > >>>> > > >>>> I see that every Flink minor version will have a major connector > > >> version. > > >>>> Do we > > >>>> have any specific reason to do so? The different versions ship > > >> backward- > > >>>> incompatible changes between those Flink versions? Otherwise I do not > > >> see a > > >>>> reason to do this, that's why I'm asking. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Ferenc > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 02:52, 주수민 <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Dev, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This is a progress update and plan sync for the upcoming > > >>>>> flink-connector-jdbc releases > > >>>>> targeting the following versions: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] jdbc-3.4.0 (for Flink 1.20) > > >>>>> [2] jdbc-5.0.0 (for Flink 2.1) > > >>>>> [3] jdbc-6.0.0 (for Flink 2.2) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We have reviewed and merged critical, high-priority PRs, and we are > > >> now > > >>>>> moving forward > > >>>>> to build the RC (Release Candidate) in the next phase. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [Progress] > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1. Jira version tags have been created (jdbc-3.4.0, jdbc-3.5.0, > > >>>>> jdbc-5.0.0, jdbc-6.0.0). > > >>>>> Note: jdbc-3.5.0 is prepared as a reserve version to accommodate > > >>>>> potential follow-up > > >>>>> patches after the initial jdbc-3.4.0 release, if needed. > > >>>>> 2. The major feature patch (PR #180 [4]) has been merged. > > >>>>> 3. PR #198 [5] was submitted as a follow-up to the stale PR > > >> #174[6] > > >>>>> (FLINK-38046). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33463?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-3.4.0 > > >>>>> [2] > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33463?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-5.0.0 > > >>>>> [3] > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-39974?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20jdbc-6.0.0 > > >>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/180 > > >>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/198 > > >>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/174 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Sumin Joo > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
