[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] powerpc/82xx: merge mgcoge.h and mgcoge3ne.h into km82xx.h

[Gerlando Falauto]

Dear Wolgfang Denk,

On 07/27/2012 07:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Gerlando Falauto,
>
> In message<1343402200-32020-4-git-send-email-gerlando.falauto at keymile.com>  you wrote:
>> Since mgcoge and mgcoge3ne are the only km82xx boards, there is no need
>> to keep them as separate .h config files.
>> Therefore, make mgcoge3ne.h and mgcoge.h converge into a single km82xx.h
>> file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gerlando Falauto<gerlando.falauto at keymile.com>
>> ---
>>   boards.cfg                  |    4 +-
>>   include/configs/km82xx.h    |  149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/configs/mgcoge.h    |   93 ---------------------------
>>   include/configs/mgcoge3ne.h |   93 ---------------------------
>>   4 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 include/configs/km82xx.h
>>   delete mode 100644 include/configs/mgcoge.h
>>   delete mode 100644 include/configs/mgcoge3ne.h
>
> Can you please try creating this patch with git format-patch with
> options "-M" and "-C", please? I think git should do better to
> recognize this rename / merge of two files.

I tried this but to no avail, the resulting patch is still the same.
Same for patch number 4.

I guess git gets confused by the fact that we are merging two files into 
one.
What I could do is to split this commit so that, for instance,
first we rename one of the files and then (on a separate commit) we move 
the content of one into the other.
In any case, I believe git has no notion of operations like "a file 
being embedded into another". I think the best we could do is to put 
such changes into a separate commit and mark it explicitly (perhaps 
including a sed script in the commit message) so that they can be 
automated in case of a rebase.

Question is, is this really worth the effort?
Is there a common practice for such reworks?

Thank you,
Gerlando