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: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to