Please do not misunderstand me; I had a little bit of time, so I created a pull request to unblock the release candidate as I suggested.
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17849 This does not prevent Max's pull request from proceeding. I am perfectly fine if Max updates his pull request to reflect the latest decision. On Thu, Aug 27, 2026, 8:51 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote: > @[email protected] <[email protected]>: How hard would be to > update the PR to follow Talat's suggestion? > > This seems like a good compromise. We could enable a seamless upgrade path > and we could limit the development effort by removing the Flink version > immediately after cutting the release branch. > > Talat Uyarer via dev <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. > aug. 27., Cs, 17:37): > >> Hi All, >> >> I agree with Manu that keeping version overlap makes sense from a >> production perspective. I also support Max's suggestion of adopting the >> "LTS + two latest releases" approach, but I believe we shouldn't switch to >> it immediately. >> >> Instead, we could announce in this release that we will adopt the "LTS + >> two latest releases" policy going forward. For the 1.12.0 release >> specifically, we could support 1.20 (LTS), 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Then, in the >> next Iceberg release (if Flink 2.4 is available), we can drop 2.1 and 2.2 >> and add 2.4. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Best, >> Talat >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 6:07 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> It looks good to me. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 9:55 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Team, >>> > >>> > As Iceberg 1.12.0 is approaching, we need to finalize the Flink >>> support matrix. >>> > >>> > Based on the previous discussions and PRs, my takeaway is that the >>> community generally supports an "LTS + two latest Flink releases" policy: >>> > >>> > Iceberg 1.11.0: Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1 >>> > Iceberg 1.12.0: Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3 >>> > >>> > The main drawback is that there is no overlap between the Flink 2.x >>> versions, making independent Flink and Iceberg upgrades harder. While not >>> ideal, I think skipping any upgrades is worse. >>> > >>> > Unless there are strong objections, I'd like to propose that we adopt >>> this policy and implement the Flink upgrades so the Iceberg 1.12.0 release >>> can proceed. >>> > >>> > In the meantime, could someone prepare the upgrade PR? Following our >>> usual approach: >>> > >>> > Move Flink 2.1 code to 2.3. >>> > Remove Flink 2.0 support. >>> > Copy Flink 2.2 from Flink 2.3. >>> > Apply any required build and code fixes. >>> > >>> > Please speak up if you have concerns with this direction. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Peter >>> > >>> > >>> >>
