I think the issue is that Iceberg release cycles are longer than Flink (also likely than Spark soon[1]), so the maintain 3 versions assumption will eventually break.
[1] https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html Thanks, Cheng Pan > On May 29, 2026, at 23:33, Yu Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I realized I made a mistake in the formulation of my first question regarding > the upgrade path. Please allow me to correct it: > > If the plan for Iceberg 1.12 is to support Flink 2.2 and 2.3 while dropping > 2.1, users currently on Iceberg 1.11 + Flink 2.0 will face a difficult > upgrade path. > > With a supported matrix of only 1.20 (LTS), 2.2, and 2.3, a Flink 2.0 user > would be forced to upgrade Flink by two minor versions (jumping straight to > 2.2 or 2.3) at the same time they upgrade Iceberg. Having to bump both > Iceberg and Flink simultaneously can be painful for users. > > As a compromise to ease this transition, would it be feasible to temporarily > support 4 Flink versions in Iceberg 1.12 (the 1.20 LTS version + 2.1, 2.2, > and 2.3)? > > We could then transition back to our standard cadence in Iceberg 1.13 by > supporting just the LTS version and the two latest Flink versions. > > That said, this is just my immature personal take, and I'd certainly defer to > the community's consensus on the final decision. > > Thanks for your understanding! > > Best regards, > GuoYu
