When working with Git, you’re bound to encounter the question: Should I rebase or merge? Both commands are used to integrate changes from one branch into another, but they handle history in very different ways. Let’s break it down.

Merge: Keeping History Intact

A merge combines the changes from one branch into another by creating a new merge commit. This commit ties the histories of the two branches together.

git checkout main
git merge feature-branch

Result:

  • The main branch gets a new commit with the changes from feature-branch.
  • The history remains complete and chronological, showing exactly when branches diverged and came back together.

When to Use Merge:

  • You want to preserve the history of how your branches evolved.
  • Working in a collaborative team where a full record of branch merges is useful.
  • You’re merging a long-lived branch and need a clear timeline.

Rebase: Rewriting History

Rebase takes the changes from one branch and applies them on top of another branch, effectively rewriting the commit history.

git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main

Result:

  • The commits from feature-branch are “replayed” onto the latest commit in main.
  • History appears linear, as if the feature branch was developed directly from the tip of main.

When to Use Rebase:

  • You want a clean, linear commit history.
  • You’re working solo or rebasing a personal feature branch before merging it.
  • You want to avoid cluttering the history with merge commits.

Both rebase and merge are powerful tools in Git. The choice depends on your workflow and priorities: historical accuracy versus a clean, streamlined commit history. Understanding these tools ensures your Git history stays as clean—or as detailed—as you need it to be.