Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I do not think there is no dispute about what embedding means. > > double negative: You think we have a slight dispute here. Sorry, I do not think there is any dispute on that. >> A >> submodule whose .git is inside its working tree has its repository >> embedded. >> >> What we had trouble settling on was what to call the operation to >> undo the embedding, unentangling its repository out of the working >> tree. I'd still vote for unembed if you want a name to be nominated. > > So I can redo the series with two commands "git submodule [un]embed". > > For me "unembed" == "absorb", such that we could also go with > absorb into superproject <-> embed into worktree With us agreeing that "embed" is about something is _IN_ submodule working tree, unembed would naturally be something becomes OUTSIDE the same thing (i.e. "submodule working tree"). However, if you introduce "absorb", we suddenly need to talk about a different thing, i.e. "superproject's .git/modules", that is doing the absorption. That is why I suggest "unembed" over "absorb".