)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":12299,"name":"Paweł Koniszewski","email":"pawel.koniszewski@gmail.com","username":"pawel.koniszewski"},"change_message_id":"287e11741e01a44411aec60dd3fd7fa26292861b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"b179f658_5de0bed3","updated":"2026-08-24 14:05:07.000000000","message":"I haven\u0027t checked this if AZ as destination for migrations follows the initial deployment path when AZ is requested explicitly.","commit_id":"e6e3767774f20d89306e73a3f8d62ebb536c7e1c"}],"doc/source/admin/availability-zones.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"0c5a78963aabebb3d5afc20c2f458fa509422b93","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":199,"context_line":"a host. The scheduler chooses a suitable host from the requested zone. This is"},{"line_number":200,"context_line":"an operation-specific scheduling constraint and does not pin or unpin the"},{"line_number":201,"context_line":"server. A server pinned to a different zone must therefore be unpinned before"},{"line_number":202,"context_line":"the migration and can be pinned to its new zone after it completes."},{"line_number":203,"context_line":""},{"line_number":204,"context_line":"Resource affinity"},{"line_number":205,"context_line":"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"d67d3828_c93e8f88","line":202,"updated":"2026-08-24 14:30:37.000000000","message":"FWIW, I was going to do this next cycle so I\u0027m glad you\u0027re going to do it for me :)\n\nI think this needs a spec, where we can discuss and codify the reasons for things like this requirement to unpin first. I\u0027m a bit mixed on whether or not I think this should be the behavior. On the one hand, unpin-move-repin is the current model (after my unpin work) but it also seems like it might not be exactly what people would want.\n\nEither way, we can discuss and document the reasoning for such things in a spec to make sure we\u0027re all on the same page. We\u0027re also very close to FF right now so I think this needs to wait until the I cycle anyway.","commit_id":"e6e3767774f20d89306e73a3f8d62ebb536c7e1c"},{"author":{"_account_id":12299,"name":"Paweł Koniszewski","email":"pawel.koniszewski@gmail.com","username":"pawel.koniszewski"},"change_message_id":"00f75054978c69c8a1032df02e70ba459895e18c","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":199,"context_line":"a host. The scheduler chooses a suitable host from the requested zone. This is"},{"line_number":200,"context_line":"an operation-specific scheduling constraint and does not pin or unpin the"},{"line_number":201,"context_line":"server. A server pinned to a different zone must therefore be unpinned before"},{"line_number":202,"context_line":"the migration and can be pinned to its new zone after it completes."},{"line_number":203,"context_line":""},{"line_number":204,"context_line":"Resource affinity"},{"line_number":205,"context_line":"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"2bf94d3c_61fbd468","line":202,"in_reply_to":"d67d3828_c93e8f88","updated":"2026-08-25 10:08:45.000000000","message":"Thanks Dan for heads up! I will put a spec for this one soon.\n\nI only did the manual unpin because of API 2.104, but I’d be more than happy if this action handled the re-pinning, as the AZ is explicitly requested. Anyway, let\u0027s have a spec for this first :)","commit_id":"e6e3767774f20d89306e73a3f8d62ebb536c7e1c"}]}