On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 13:57 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > On 08-01-2024 17:16, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Doing it this way was Ben's preference (he wanted to be able to see > > that every bug was updated and get a notice from the script for any > > single bug change that failed), > > Historically, the script ran much faster than Bugzilla, which meant > after a while, we'd start getting timeouts. This is why there are > pauses built into the script. A few years ago, the performance of > Bugzilla improved greatly, but I never felt like exploring where the > boundaries are. Updating all matching bugs in one transaction is still > probably going to result in timeouts, but smaller chunks should work > well enough. If Bugzilla is engineered *at all* sanely, it should be much less work for it to process a single request to do the same thing to 500 bugs than it is to process 500 individual requests to do the same thing to a single bug. There probably *is* a limit on the number of bugs you can request changes to at once, but it should be simple enough to find out what that ceiling is and work in batches below it. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
