maillog: 21/07/2004-16:08:09(+0100): Stuart Herbert types
> We've been using XML-based ChangeLogs where I work for over six months now, 
> and both staff and customers have found them to be more useful than 
> plain-text ChangeLogs.

If it is worth anything, I personally find the Changelogs in the portage tree
very hard to read:

- listing lots of filenames on one line clutters the entry and makes it hard to
  distinguish if there is anything of interest on the line
- the filenames of affected ebuilds start after the name of the author of the
  entry, which very often changes the position of the filename and makes it
  hard to jump from entry to entry
- the syntax is not what other packages use, or at least neither vim nor xemacs
  highlight it properly (same goes for the kernel changelog, but at least it is
  readable; removing the indent makes for a better highlighting)
- if there are multiple changes in a single entry, they are hard to
  distringuish because all the text is just thrown there

In case I am way out of line, accept my apologies, because I didn't follow the
thread.

-- 
*)   Georgi Georgiev   *) Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete      *)
(*    chutz@gg3.net    (* successfully in business. Cheat. --          (*
*)  +81(90)6266-1163   *) Ambrose Bierce                               *)