avdd wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:52 am, "Michael Bayer" <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > >> the behavior you first illustrated, that of merge() and add() not acting >> the same regarding pending changes, was a behavior that was somewhat in >> the realm of a bug. I mentioned the other day it was fixed in r6711. > > Well no, not in 0.5 (r6712).
its not an entirely backwards compatible change, since it is add()ing an object that otherwise would not be added, thus causing an error if that object is attached to some other session. I'd recommend upgrading to 0.6, beta1 release is any day this week I get a chance to do it. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
