You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jira@kafka.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/06/07 13:34:39 UTC
[GitHub] [kafka] ijuma commented on a diff in pull request #12260: MINOR: add note on IDEMPOTENT_WRITE ACL to 3.2.0 notable changes
ijuma commented on code in PR #12260:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12260#discussion_r891237342
##########
docs/upgrade.html:
##########
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ <h5><a id="upgrade_320_notable" href="#upgrade_320_notable">Notable changes in 3
which meant that idempotence remained disabled unless the user had explicitly set <code>enable.idempotence</code> to true
(See <a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13598">KAFKA-13598</a>for more details).
This issue was fixed and the default is properly applied in 3.0.1, 3.1.1, and 3.2.0.</li>
+ <ul>
+ <li>When the broker version is lower than 2.8.0, and the client version is 3.0.1, 3.1.1, and later, the IDEMPOTENT_WRITE permission is required to produce data</li>
Review Comment:
I would say something like: Please read the relevant KIP section for the compatibility implications - a noteworthy item worth highlighting is...
Also, we should use the same approach for this and other lines. It's unclear to me why we added a `ul` here, but not in the other case. I'd probably include this paragraph in the previous <li>
##########
docs/upgrade.html:
##########
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ <h5><a id="upgrade_320_notable" href="#upgrade_320_notable">Notable changes in 3
which meant that idempotence remained disabled unless the user had explicitly set <code>enable.idempotence</code> to true
(See <a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13598">KAFKA-13598</a>for more details).
This issue was fixed and the default is properly applied in 3.0.1, 3.1.1, and 3.2.0.</li>
+ <ul>
+ <li>When the broker version is lower than 2.8.0, and the client version is 3.0.1, 3.1.1, and later, the IDEMPOTENT_WRITE permission is required to produce data</li>
Review Comment:
I would say something like: Please read the relevant KIP section for the compatibility implications - a noteworthy item worth highlighting is...
Also, we should use the same approach for this and other lines. It's unclear to me why we added a `ul` here, but not in the other case. I'd probably include this paragraph in the previous `li`
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jira-unsubscribe@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org