Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 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 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 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 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 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 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, 20
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 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
>>> 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 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
>> 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:
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 > 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 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 > 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.
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 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 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 > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 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 > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-jdbc Release Plan Sync - v3.4.0 / v5.0.0 / v6.0.0
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 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 >
