| 25 May 2025 |
 emily | ah already pinged on the PR I see | 13:05:28 |
 prince213 | It's quite a list | 13:06:19 |
| prince213 | But haven't seen any review yet | 13:06:28 |
| emily | looks like a very substantive PR, thanks for putting in all this work! I don't have time to review fully right now (and I'm not a networking expert), but a few suggestions:
- is it intended to be reviewed commit-by-commit? maybe some commits could be squashed to ease review, especially if some intermediate states may be broken (I approve of granular commits in general though!)
- could some of this be split up into separate PRs? it looks like there are parts that just make some modules/tests more abstracted over various firewalls rather than assuming one implementation? so if those could be reviewed and landed separately it may be easier to get this through. similarly, the commits that are adding additional features to the module, or adding support for it in other modules, could be split out (simple "add the package to the list" commits could all go in one PR to handle that in bulk, say; not saying one commit per PR)
| 13:08:27 |
| emily | large PRs are pretty daunting to review so if you can take advantage of the commit granularity to split out stuff that is obvious cleanups/improvements, and chores for "after" the functionality exists, it makes it more likely that someone will find time to give a detailed review of the core functionality :) | 13:09:37 |
| prince213 | Thanks for the advice. It was originally carried over from my previous work https://git.sr.ht/~prince213/firewalld-nix and I've squash some commits together for easier reviewing, but well it's probably not enough. | 13:18:11 |
| prince213 | I should reorganize the commits then. 🤔 | 13:18:47 |
|  HaroldOllivier changed their profile picture. | 18:56:54 |
| 26 May 2025 |
|  ximnoise left the room. | 02:55:25 |
| ximnoise joined the room. | 02:57:38 |
|  XenGi joined the room. | 08:13:05 |
| 27 May 2025 |
 matthewcroughan @fosdem | https://www.amazon.co.uk/MikroTik-CRS305-1G-4S-IN/dp/B07LFKGP1L | 10:01:16 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | I wonder, does this do 10G | 10:01:22 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | it doesn't say it does | 10:01:23 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | But the CRS304-4XG-IN does, and the model names are very similar | 10:01:38 |
 uep | 4S+.. yes it does | 10:03:18 |
| uep | Cootamundra | 10:03:46 |
| uep | * https://mikrotik.com/product/crs305_1g_4s_in | 10:04:01 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | Veeeery cool | 10:05:25 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | so I just put a 10G in one of the SFPs and get 3 10G SFP+ out | 10:05:53 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | I would really enjoy something with some more SFP ports | 10:06:03 |
 K900 | Well you're still bottlenecked by the upstream | 10:06:53 |
| matthewcroughan @fosdem | WDYM? | 10:07:04 |
| K900 | It's not like it can give you free bandwidth | 10:07:07 |
| uep | sfp ports, not sfp+ ports | 10:07:28 |
| uep | https://mikrotik.com/product/crs310_1g_5s_4s_in | 10:08:10 |
| K900 | In reply to @matthewcroughan:defenestrate.it
WDYM? I mean that you can't saturate the three downlinks with one uplink | 10:08:14 |
| uep | protip.. for all mikrotik products, look at the "block diagram" link | 10:12:41 |
| uep | that will show you the difference between the CRS304 and CRS305 models for example | 10:14:24 |
| uep | (in the 305, the 1g port is also on the switch chip, in the 304 it's via cpu) | 10:14:58 |
