Git rebase vs merge: when to use which
Compare Git rebase and merge strategies for integrating changes between branches.
Git rebase vs merge: when to use which
Git rebase and merge both integrate changes between branches, but they produce different commit histories.
How Git Merge Combines Branches
git merge creates a new merge commit that has two parents — the tip of the current branch and the tip of the merged branch. The commit history preserves the full context of parallel development. Merge commits show when and where branches diverged and converged.
How Git Rebase Replays Commits
git rebase moves the current branch's commits on top of another branch by replaying them one at a time. The result is a linear commit history with no merge commits. Each rebased commit gets a new hash because its parent changes.
Feature Comparison: Rebase vs Merge in Git
| Aspect | Merge | Rebase |
|---|---|---|
| History shape | Non-linear (preserves branch structure) | Linear (flat history) |
| Merge commits | Creates merge commits | No merge commits |
| Commit hashes | Preserved | Changed (new hashes) |
| Safe for shared branches | Yes — does not rewrite history | No — rewrites history, breaks collaborators |
| Conflict resolution | Once during merge | Once per replayed commit |
When to Use Git Merge
Use merge for shared branches (main, develop) where preserving the full development history matters. Merge is always safe — it never rewrites existing commits. Use merge when multiple developers push to the same branch.
When to Use Git Rebase
Use rebase for local feature branches before merging into the main branch. Rebasing produces a clean, linear history that is easier to read with
git log. Never rebase commits that have been pushed to a shared remote branch — this rewrites history and forces other developers to resolve conflicts.