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.