Re: Link order a pain, positional argument --start-group problematic

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:28 +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > your arguments are weak as water and inept to be discussing a huge change
> > 
> > also: it's absolutely untrue that "in DOS days link order didn't matter", i
> > was managing C and asm library symbols in and out of .o "in the DOS days",
> > and dependancy, symbol order certainly did matter
> > 
> > going "your way" we'd all have to throw away all software that worked so
> > that yours would "work easier for you", and have to wait for you to finish
> > the work - which you never would
> > 
> > all autmake projects would cease to work and all past sofware would have to
> > be rewritten by your edicts
> > 
> > NO THANKS - I'LL KEEP AUTOMAKE, WHICH WORKS ALLOT BETTER THAN YOU DO
> 
> I don't know if you realize it, but I, for one, found the tone of
> your message to be quite disrespectful.
> 
> There are many ways to express you disagreement (for instance, take
> a look at Nick's answer to the very same message), and I will hope
> that everyone agrees with me that this way is not welcome here.

> If you didn't realize how you were expressing yourself, then you
> will do both yourself and others a favor by being more mindful
> before answering someone. Here's one possible way: re-read your
> message imagining it was aimed at you, and ask youself whether
> you'd like to be addressed that way.

Thanks for writing this Joel; I was planning to write something similar,
but you've expressed what I wanted to say.

Hope this is constructive
Dave