Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Cheng Pan]

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  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

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Yu Guo]

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Yu Guo]

+1 for keeping Flink 1.20 as the LTS version. I have two questions I'd like
to get the community's thoughts on:

1. Should we skip Flink 2.2 and jump directly to 2.3?

If we drop 2.2 and go straight to 2.3, users currently on Iceberg 1.11 +
Flink 2.0 will face a difficult upgrade path when moving to Iceberg 1.12.
Since the supported matrix would only be 1.20, 2.1, and 2.3, they would be
forced to upgrade Flink from 2.0 directly to 2.1 while also upgrading
Iceberg — having to perform two major upgrades simultaneously would be
quite painful for users. Would it be feasible to support 4 Flink versions
in this case as a compromise?

2. Documentation for feature compatibility across Flink versions:

Some newer features, such as the Variant type, are not supported on Flink
1.20. If we commit to maintaining Flink 1.20 support for the long term, we
should clearly document which features are unavailable on older Flink
versions, so users can make informed decisions when choosing their version
combinations.

Thanks
GuoYu！

Maximilian Michels  于2026年5月29日周五 05:20写道：

> +1 for Steven's suggestion to target the LTS + two latest Flink releases.
>
> >My previous experience suggests that during upgrades it is usually better
> to change only one thing at a time.
>
> @Peter Not optimal, but if we skipped newer Flink versions to preserve
> the older versions, what do we tell users of newer Flink versions?
> Ideally, we would retain support for a given Flink version throughout
> Iceberg releases for as long as possible, but we have to strike a
> balance. That said, we could start supporting more than three Flink
> versions. In that case we need to tune the build matrix a bit, to
> prevent building all Flink versions for every change. I just noticed
> that we always build and test all the versions, even if we do not
> touch files for an older Flink version.
>
> I wonder whether we could support older Flink versions a bit more
> compact, e.g. using a diff against the latest Flink version. The copy
> approach is a bit error-prone and hard to review. The actual changes
> between Flink versions are usually small.
>
> -Max
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:29 AM Péter Váry 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have some concerns, that with the proposed new support matrix forces
> users to upgrade Flink and Iceberg versions at the same time.
> >
> > My previous experience suggests that during upgrades it is usually
> better to change only one thing at a time.
> >
> > Do others share my concerns?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2026, 02:42 Steven Wu  wrote:
> >>
> >> Talat, thanks for working on the 2.2 support.
> >>
> >> Please follow the previous PR regarding the version upgrade. Similarly,
> we want 4 or 5 commits that should be preserved via `Rebase and merge`
> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13714/commits
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:26 PM Talat Uyarer via dev <
> dev@iceberg.apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought
> as well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a
> significant change for the Flink ecosystem.
> >>>
> >>> If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0
> support and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the
> recent Iceberg 1.11.0 release (
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476), so I will rebase and
> refresh that work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu 
> wrote:
> 
>  > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
> 
>  That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an
> iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1
> Iceberg release.
> 
>  We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and
> mark them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source
> of truth.
> 
>  [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink
> 
> 
> 
>  On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu 
> wrote:
> >
> > Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.
> >
> > I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0
> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
> dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.
> >
> > So here is the revised support matrix.
> > 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
> > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
> >
> > Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our
> targeted regular cadence.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
> >>
> >> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd
> like to share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be
> useful for this discussion.
> >>
> >> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and
> during this process we noticed the foll

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Maximilian Michels]

+1 for Steven's suggestion to target the LTS + two latest Flink releases.

>My previous experience suggests that during upgrades it is usually better to 
>change only one thing at a time.

@Peter Not optimal, but if we skipped newer Flink versions to preserve
the older versions, what do we tell users of newer Flink versions?
Ideally, we would retain support for a given Flink version throughout
Iceberg releases for as long as possible, but we have to strike a
balance. That said, we could start supporting more than three Flink
versions. In that case we need to tune the build matrix a bit, to
prevent building all Flink versions for every change. I just noticed
that we always build and test all the versions, even if we do not
touch files for an older Flink version.

I wonder whether we could support older Flink versions a bit more
compact, e.g. using a diff against the latest Flink version. The copy
approach is a bit error-prone and hard to review. The actual changes
between Flink versions are usually small.

-Max

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:29 AM Péter Váry  wrote:
>
> I have some concerns, that with the proposed new support matrix forces users 
> to upgrade Flink and Iceberg versions at the same time.
>
> My previous experience suggests that during upgrades it is usually better to 
> change only one thing at a time.
>
> Do others share my concerns?
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2026, 02:42 Steven Wu  wrote:
>>
>> Talat, thanks for working on the 2.2 support.
>>
>> Please follow the previous PR regarding the version upgrade. Similarly, we 
>> want 4 or 5 commits that should be preserved via `Rebase and merge`
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13714/commits
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:26 PM Talat Uyarer via dev 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought as 
>>> well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a 
>>> significant change for the Flink ecosystem.
>>>
>>> If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0 support 
>>> and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the recent 
>>> Iceberg 1.11.0 release (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476), so I 
>>> will rebase and refresh that work.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:

 > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3

 That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an 
 iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1 
 Iceberg release.

 We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark 
 them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of 
 truth.

 [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink



 On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu  wrote:
>
> Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.
>
> I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0 
> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I 
> propose dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.
>
> So here is the revised support matrix.
> 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>
> Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted 
> regular cadence.
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:
>>
>> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
>>
>> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to 
>> share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful 
>> for this discussion.
>>
>> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and 
>> during this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector 
>> community is currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 
>> 2.1.0 has effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's 
>> mainstream support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially 
>> released, so integration work cannot proceed at this stage.
>>
>> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several 
>> Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 
>> 2.1.0 and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current 
>> maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader 
>> ecosystem compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.
>>
>> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:
>>
>> Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink Connector 
>> community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg + Flink 
>> can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
>> Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with integration 
>> once it is officially released — this can be planned as a follow-up 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Péter Váry]

I have some concerns, that with the proposed new support matrix forces
users to upgrade Flink and Iceberg versions at the same time.

My previous experience suggests that during upgrades it is usually better
to change only one thing at a time.

Do others share my concerns?


On Wed, May 27, 2026, 02:42 Steven Wu  wrote:

> Talat, thanks for working on the 2.2 support.
>
> Please follow the previous PR regarding the version upgrade. Similarly, we
> want 4 or 5 commits that should be preserved via `Rebase and merge`
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13714/commits
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:26 PM Talat Uyarer via dev <
> dev@iceberg.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought as
>> well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a
>> significant change for the Flink ecosystem.
>>
>> If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0 support
>> and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the recent
>> Iceberg 1.11.0 release (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476),
>> so I will rebase and refresh that work.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:
>>
>>> > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>>>
>>> That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an
>>> iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1
>>> Iceberg release.
>>>
>>> We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark
>>> them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of
>>> truth.
>>>
>>> [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu  wrote:
>>>
 Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.

 I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0
 release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
 dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.

 So here is the revised support matrix.
 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3

 Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted
 regular cadence.


 On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:

> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
>
> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like
> to share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be 
> useful
> for this discussion.
>
> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and
> during this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector 
> community
> is currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
> effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
> support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
> integration work cannot proceed at this stage.
>
> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with
> several Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to
> skip 2.1.0 and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's
> current maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader
> ecosystem compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.
>
> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:
>
>
>- Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink
>Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running 
> Iceberg +
>Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
>- Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with
>integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a
>follow-up milestone;
>- Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance
>resources too thin.
>
>
> That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
> maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking 
> forward
> to hearing further thoughts from the community.
>
>
> Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
>>  about how we want to
>> manage Flink version support for the next release.
>>
>>
>> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
>> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
>> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
>> dev list.
>>
>>
>> The main points raised so far are:
>>
>>1.
>>
>>Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS
>>release and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink
>>version, Flink 2.0 ma

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Steven Wu]

Talat, thanks for working on the 2.2 support.

Please follow the previous PR regarding the version upgrade. Similarly, we
want 4 or 5 commits that should be preserved via `Rebase and merge`
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13714/commits



On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:26 PM Talat Uyarer via dev 
wrote:

> Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought as
> well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a
> significant change for the Flink ecosystem.
>
> If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0 support
> and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the recent
> Iceberg 1.11.0 release (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476), so
> I will rebase and refresh that work.
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:
>
>> > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>>
>> That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an
>> iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1
>> Iceberg release.
>>
>> We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark
>> them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of
>> truth.
>>
>> [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu  wrote:
>>
>>> Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.
>>>
>>> I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0
>>> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
>>> dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.
>>>
>>> So here is the revised support matrix.
>>> 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
>>> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>>>
>>> Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted
>>> regular cadence.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:
>>>
 +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.

 Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to
 share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful
 for this discussion.

 Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and
 during this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community
 is currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
 effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
 support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
 integration work cannot proceed at this stage.

 In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several
 Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0
 and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current
 maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem
 compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.

 Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:


- Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink
Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg 
 +
Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
- Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with
integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a
follow-up milestone;
- Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance
resources too thin.


 That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
 maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward
 to hearing further thoughts from the community.


 Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：

> Hi everyone,
>
> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
>  about how we want to
> manage Flink version support for the next release.
>
>
> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
> dev list.
>
>
> The main points raised so far are:
>
>1.
>
>Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS
>release and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink
>version, Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20.
>2.
>
>Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work
>for Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and 
> Flink
>2.3 is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip 
> 2.2
>and move directly to 2.3 instead.
>
>
> My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1,
> and 2.3 in the next Iceberg

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Talat Uyarer via dev]

Thank you, Steve, for the discussion email. It was my initial thought as
well to keep Flink 1.20, as the transition from 1.20 to 2.0 represents a
significant change for the Flink ecosystem.

If there are no objections, I will create a PR to drop Flink 2.0 support
and add Flink 2.2 instead. I previously opened a 2.2 PR before the recent
Iceberg 1.11.0 release (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15476), so I
will rebase and refresh that work.


On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:57 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:

> > 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>
> That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an
> iceberg-flink-runtime for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1
> Iceberg release.
>
> We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark
> them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of
> truth.
>
> [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu  wrote:
>
>> Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.
>>
>> I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0
>> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
>> dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.
>>
>> So here is the revised support matrix.
>> 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
>> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>>
>> Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted
>> regular cadence.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
>>>
>>> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to
>>> share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful
>>> for this discussion.
>>>
>>> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and
>>> during this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community
>>> is currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
>>> effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
>>> support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
>>> integration work cannot proceed at this stage.
>>>
>>> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several
>>> Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0
>>> and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current
>>> maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem
>>> compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.
>>>
>>> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:
>>>
>>>
>>>- Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink
>>>Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg +
>>>Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
>>>- Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with
>>>integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a
>>>follow-up milestone;
>>>- Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance
>>>resources too thin.
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
>>> maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward
>>> to hearing further thoughts from the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
  about how we want to
 manage Flink version support for the next release.


 The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
 discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
 dev list.


 The main points raised so far are:

1.

Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS release
and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink version,
Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20.
2.

Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work
for Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and 
 Flink
2.3 is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip 
 2.2
and move directly to 2.3 instead.


 My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1, and
 2.3 in the next Iceberg release:12.0 release.

- Keep Flink 1.20 for longer and drop Flink 2.0 instead.
- Jump directly to Flink 2.3 and skip 2.2.


 What do others think?


 Thanks,
 Steven


>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Kevin Liu]

> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3

That makes sense. I think it's a good idea to have an iceberg-flink-runtime
for each Flink release, even if it's only for 1 Iceberg release.

We should also update the Multi-engine support - Flink [1] page and mark
them as "Deprecated". I think many users use that page for the source of
truth.

[1] https://iceberg.apache.org/multi-engine-support/#apache-flink



On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:15 AM Steven Wu  wrote:

> Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.
>
> I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0
> release coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
> dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.
>
> So here is the revised support matrix.
> 1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
> 1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3
>
> Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted
> regular cadence.
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:
>
>> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
>>
>> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to
>> share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful
>> for this discussion.
>>
>> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and during
>> this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community is
>> currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
>> effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
>> support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
>> integration work cannot proceed at this stage.
>>
>> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several
>> Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0
>> and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current
>> maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem
>> compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.
>>
>> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:
>>
>>
>>- Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink
>>Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg +
>>Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
>>- Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with
>>integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a
>>follow-up milestone;
>>- Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance
>>resources too thin.
>>
>>
>> That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
>> maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward
>> to hearing further thoughts from the community.
>>
>>
>> Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
>>>  about how we want to
>>> manage Flink version support for the next release.
>>>
>>>
>>> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
>>> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
>>> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
>>> dev list.
>>>
>>>
>>> The main points raised so far are:
>>>
>>>1.
>>>
>>>Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS release
>>>and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink version,
>>>Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20.
>>>2.
>>>
>>>Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work
>>>for Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and 
>>> Flink
>>>2.3 is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip 
>>> 2.2
>>>and move directly to 2.3 instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1, and
>>> 2.3 in the next Iceberg release:12.0 release.
>>>
>>>- Keep Flink 1.20 for longer and drop Flink 2.0 instead.
>>>- Jump directly to Flink 2.3 and skip 2.2.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Steven Wu]

Jacky, thanks a lot for sharing the observations.

I agree with prioritizing support for Flink 2.2.0. With Flink 2.3.0 release
coming soon (most likely before the next Iceberg 1.12.0), I propose
dropping the support for 2.1.0 when adding 2.3.0.

So here is the revised support matrix.
1.11.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.0, 2.1
1.12.0: support Flink 1.20, 2.2, 2.3

Iceberg 1.12.0 would likely be 2-3 months away following our targeted
regular cadence.


On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:11 AM Jacky Lee  wrote:

> +1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.
>
> Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to
> share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful
> for this discussion.
>
> Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and during
> this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community is
> currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
> effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
> support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
> integration work cannot proceed at this stage.
>
> In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several
> Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0
> and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current
> maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem
> compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.
>
> Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:
>
>
>- Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink
>Connector community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg +
>Flink can benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
>- Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with
>integration once it is officially released — this can be planned as a
>follow-up milestone;
>- Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance
>resources too thin.
>
>
> That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
> maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward
> to hearing further thoughts from the community.
>
>
> Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
>>  about how we want to
>> manage Flink version support for the next release.
>>
>>
>> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
>> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
>> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
>> dev list.
>>
>>
>> The main points raised so far are:
>>
>>1.
>>
>>Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS release
>>and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink version,
>>Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20.
>>2.
>>
>>Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work
>>for Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and 
>> Flink
>>2.3 is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip 2.2
>>and move directly to 2.3 instead.
>>
>>
>> My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1, and
>> 2.3 in the next Iceberg release:12.0 release.
>>
>>- Keep Flink 1.20 for longer and drop Flink 2.0 instead.
>>- Jump directly to Flink 2.3 and skip 2.2.
>>
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steven
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Flink version support after Iceberg 1.11.0

[Jacky Lee]

+1 for retaining Flink 1.20 support.

Regarding whether to skip 2.2.0 and jump directly to 2.3.0, I'd like to
share some observations from the Flink ecosystem side that may be useful
for this discussion.

Our team has been working on a Flink version upgrade recently, and during
this process we noticed the following: the Flink Connector community is
currently maintaining primarily 2.0.0 and 2.2.0, while 2.1.0 has
effectively been skipped and is not part of the connector's mainstream
support matrix. As for 2.3.0, it has not yet been officially released, so
integration work cannot proceed at this stage.

In addition, I've discussed the version selection question with several
Flink PMC members, and the consistent recommendation has been to skip 2.1.0
and adopt 2.2.0 directly. Looking at the Flink community's current
maintenance focus and user adoption, 2.2.0 clearly offers broader ecosystem
compatibility and stronger community support compared to 2.1.0.

Based on the above, I'd lean toward the following approach:


   - Prioritize support for Flink 2.2.0, aligning with the Flink Connector
   community's mainline direction, so that users running Iceberg + Flink can
   benefit from the most complete ecosystem support;
   - Track the 2.3.0 release in parallel, and move forward with integration
   once it is officially released — this can be planned as a follow-up
   milestone;
   - Defer 2.1.0 support for now, to avoid spreading maintenance resources
   too thin.


That said, the final decision should still factor in Iceberg's overall
maintenance capacity and the actual needs of our user base. Looking forward
to hearing further thoughts from the community.


Steven Wu  于2026年5月26日周二 14:03写道：

> Hi everyone,
>
> There is an ongoing discussion in PR #16517
>  about how we want to
> manage Flink version support for the next release.
>
>
> The current PR proposes removing Flink 1.20 support now that Iceberg
> 1.11.0 is out and Flink 2.1 support has been added. However, the PR
> discussion raised a few broader questions that seem worth deciding on the
> dev list.
>
>
> The main points raised so far are:
>
>1.
>
>Should we really drop Flink 1.20 next? Flink 1.20 is an LTS release
>and has a longer support window. If we remove one older Flink version,
>Flink 2.0 may be the better candidate to drop instead of 1.20.
>2.
>
>Which new Flink version should we add next? There was earlier work for
>Flink 2.2, but because Iceberg 1.11.0 took a while to release and Flink 2.3
>is already out, it may be worth considering whether we should skip 2.2 and
>move directly to 2.3 instead.
>
>
> My proposed approach would result in supporting versions 1.20, 2.1, and
> 2.3 in the next Iceberg release:12.0 release.
>
>- Keep Flink 1.20 for longer and drop Flink 2.0 instead.
>- Jump directly to Flink 2.3 and skip 2.2.
>
>
> What do others think?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Steven
>
>