Both rebase and merge integrate changes between branches. Understanding when to use each keeps your Git history clean and your team happy.
The Difference#
Merge:
- Creates a merge commit
- Preserves complete history
- Shows when branches diverged and joined
- Non-destructive
Rebase:
- Rewrites commit history
- Creates linear history
- Moves commits to new base
- Cleaner but rewrites SHAs
Visual Comparison#
Before (both):
main: A---B---C
\
feature: D---E
After merge:
main: A---B---C-------M
\ /
feature: D---E---/
After rebase:
main: A---B---C
\
feature: D'---E'
When to Merge#
Loading code block...
When to Rebase#
Loading code block...
Interactive Rebase#
Loading code block...
Handling Conflicts#
Loading code block...
Team Workflows#
Loading code block...
Golden Rule#
Loading code block...
Practical Examples#
Loading code block...
Autosquash#
Loading code block...
Recovering from Mistakes#
Loading code block...
Comparison Table#
| Aspect | Merge | Rebase |
|-----------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| History | Non-linear | Linear |
| Commits | Preserved + merge | Rewritten |
| Conflicts | Once | Per commit |
| Shared branches | Safe | Dangerous |
| Traceability | Complete | Simplified |
| Rollback | Easy | Harder |
Best Practices#
Rebase:
✓ Local feature branches
✓ Before creating PR
✓ To update with latest main
✓ Interactive to clean history
Merge:
✓ Completing PRs
✓ Shared branches
✓ When history matters
✓ Release branches
Avoid:
✗ Rebasing public branches
✗ Force push without --force-with-lease
✗ Rewriting shared history
✗ Complex rebases without backup
Conclusion#
Use rebase to keep feature branches updated and history clean. Use merge to integrate completed work into shared branches. Never rebase commits that others depend on. When in doubt, merge is safer—it doesn't rewrite history.