Git Merge vs Rebase: When to Use Each

Merge vs. Rebase: What Is the Difference?

Both commands integrate changes from one branch into another, but they do it differently:

• git merge creates a new merge commit that combines the two branch histories.
• git rebase replays your commits on top of the target branch, creating a linear history.

Git Merge

git checkout main
git merge feature-branch

This creates a merge commit with two parents. The complete branching history is preserved.

Pros: Non-destructive, preserves full context of how work was done in parallel. Cons: Merge commits can clutter the log, especially with frequent merges.

Git Rebase

git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main

This moves your feature branch commits to start from the tip of main.

Pros: Clean, linear history. Easier to read git log and git bisect. Cons: Rewrites commit hashes. Dangerous on shared branches.

The Golden Rule

Never rebase commits that have been pushed to a shared branch. If others have based work on those commits, rebasing forces everyone to reconcile the rewritten history.

Team Strategies

Strategy	Workflow
Merge-only	Always merge. Simple, safe, preserves all history.
Rebase + merge	Rebase feature branch, then merge with --no-ff to create a merge commit.
Squash merge	Collapse all feature commits into a single commit on merge.

Recommended Workflow

# Update feature branch with latest main
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main

# Merge into main with a merge commit for traceability
git checkout main
git merge --no-ff feature-branch

This gives you a linear history within the feature branch and a clear merge point on main. It is the best of both worlds for most teams.