+1
3.8.6 is end of life, so 3.9 looks like a sensible upgrade. I assume we will
not back port. Is this targeting the next Flink 2 point release or Flink 3?
Kind regards, David.
From: David Anderson <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, 18 August 2026 at 23:17
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Bump the build/enforced Maven version from
3.8.6 to 3.9.x
+1 I can only see upsides to this, but I could be missing something.
I believe we ended up on 3.8.6 because that was the newest version that
Chesnay deemed trustworthy at the time of the last maven upgrade [1].
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/jbw3lzzoq5w16ckco3fc9xokycs3f22x
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 7:07 AM Gabor Somogyi <[email protected]>
wrote:
> +1 from my side.
> Just for my own understanding why we've stuck with such an old maven?
> For me it's always a pain to have such an old version.
>
> G
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 2:25 PM Martijn Visser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to propose moving Flink's build from the currently pinned
> > Maven 3.8.6 to the Maven 3.9 line (3.9.16). This was left for "a
> > separate discussion" when we adopted Apache Parent POM 35 in
> > FLINK-39427 [1]
> >
> > I'd propose to move it because:
> > - Maven 3.8.6 (2022) is aging; 3.9.x is the current stable 3.x line
> > and a prerequisite for future Apache Parent POM upgrades (36+).
> > - It moves us onto Maven's "consumer POM" model behavior that
> > anticipates Maven 4.
> >
> > I've ran a sample/local red/green diff of 3.8.6 version 3.9.16,
> > building flink-s3-fs-hadoop -am on JDK 17 and 11, the full flink-dist
> > -am reactor on JDK 17, and a -Prelease build on
> > Java 11 to match how releases are actually cut.
> >
> > Both are building cleanly on JDK 17 and 11, the shaded uber-jars seem
> > to be byte-identical in contents and the aggregated NOTICE files also
> > seem identical, except the manifest "Created-By" changes. The only
> > change I saw is that the flink-parent pom inlines the release profile
> > plugin config, while 3.9 emits the pom with re-inlining them. Perhaps
> > there will be more issues when opening a PR, but from a first glance
> > it seemed to be OK locally.
> >
> > While running the tests I did see that there is a warning about
> > gpgArguments, which now surfaces. I'll file a separate Jira on this,
> > it's because of the maven-gpg-plugin version we're using.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-39427
> >
>
Unless otherwise stated above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road,
Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN
