Re: [PATCH 0/6] git-rm absorbs submodule git directory before deletion

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> 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".