On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@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".
ok, I will take unembed then. We could also go with more command line options such as "embed --reverse" or such, but that is not as nice I'd think.
