Fair. Let’s keep 2.1 then and move ahead with the release. We may need to rebase the other release-pending Flink PRs, now that Flink 2.3 is the latest version. Not a big deal.
-Max Péter Váry <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr. 28. Aug. 2026 um 15:31: > In the meantime I have merged https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17849, > as the general sentiment is that we would like to support Flink 2.3 and 2.2. > We might still decide to remove Flink 2.1 support, but that's an easier PR > if we decide so. > > > There is no inherent issue with skipping an Iceberg or Flink version. > > I think it is better to have the possibility to upgrade Iceberg and Flink > independently, so I would keep the Flink 2.1 for now. > > Thanks, > Peter > > Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. aug. 28., P, > 13:57): > >> Hi Talat, >> >> Thanks for looking into this! I understand the sentiment to retain as >> much Flink version support as possible. But we never had a consistent >> version support policy. I don’t think we need to announce one ahead of the >> release. >> >> The upgrade cadence in organizations for both Flink and Iceberg vary >> wildly. Its rare that they move sequentially through both Iceberg and Flink >> versions. There is no inherent issue with skipping an Iceberg or Flink >> version. >> >> LTS + two release versions matches the Flink upstream support and keeps >> things manageable. >> >> Maybe others can chime in as well. >> >> Thanks, >> Max >> >> >> Talat Uyarer via dev <[email protected]> schrieb am Do. 27. Aug. >> 2026 um 20:06: >> >>> 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 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>
