Git: Rebase vs Merge

For developers just starting their Git journey, few concepts cause as much confusion as choosing between git rebase and git merge. Both commands accomplish similar goals—they integrate changes from one branch into another. But they do so in fundamentally different ways that can significantly impact your project's history and workflow.

The Core Difference: History Philosophy

At their heart, rebase and merge represent two different philosophies about code history:

• Merge preserves history exactly as it happened. It records the fact that work happened in parallel and then came together at a specific point.
• Rebase rewrites history to make it appear as if your work happened sequentially, even if it actually occurred in parallel.

Neither approach is inherently better—they're simply different tools for different situations.

Understanding How They Work

To appreciate the pros and cons, let's first understand how each command works with a simple visualization.

The Starting Point

Imagine we have a feature branch that diverged from the main branch some time ago:

       A---B---C feature
      /
D---E---F---G main

Here:

• E is the commit where we branched off from main
• A, B, and C are our feature commits
• F and G are new commits added to main by other developers while we were working

Now we have two options to integrate the latest changes from main into our feature branch.

The Merge Approach

When we run git merge main while on our feature branch, Git creates a special "merge commit" that has two parents: the latest commit on our feature branch (C) and the latest commit on main (G).

      A---B---C---H feature
     /         /
D---E---F---G main

This new commit H represents the merging of the two separate lines of development. It preserves the exact history of both branches and clearly shows that development happened in parallel.

The Rebase Approach

When we run git rebase main while on our feature branch, Git essentially:

• Temporarily stores our feature commits (A, B, C)
• Resets our feature branch to point to the latest main commit (G)
• Replays our feature commits one by one on top of that

The result looks like this:

               A'--B'--C' feature
              /
D---E---F---G main

Notice that our original commits (A, B, C) have been replaced with new commits (A', B', C'). These new commits contain the same changes, but they have new commit IDs because they have different parent commits.

The history now appears as if we started our feature work after commit G, even though we actually started after commit E.

Key Benefits and Drawbacks

Merge Benefits

• Historical Accuracy: Merge preserves the true timeline of development, showing exactly when work was done and when it was integrated.
• Safety for Shared Branches: Since merge doesn't rewrite history, it's safe to use on branches that others might be working on. Conflict Resolution Simplicity: All conflicts are resolved in a single merge commit, making the process more straightforward.
• Traceability: The merge commit creates a clear marker showing when and how code was integrated.

Merge Drawbacks

• Cluttered History: Multiple merges can create a complex, non-linear history that's harder to follow.
• "Merge Commit Noise": Projects with frequent merges can accumulate many merge commits that don't directly represent feature work.
• Less Clean Feature Narrative: The story of how a feature was built can be harder to follow when interrupted by merge commits.

Rebase Benefits

• Linear History: Creates a clean, straight-line history that's easier to follow.
• Clean Feature Narratives: All commits related to a feature appear as a contiguous sequence.
• Eliminates Unnecessary Merge Commits: Avoids cluttering history with purely mechanical merge commits.
• Incremental Conflict Resolution: Resolves conflicts one commit at a time, which can be more manageable for complex conflicts.

Rebase Drawbacks

• Rewrites History: Changes commit IDs, which can cause problems if the branch is shared.
• Potential for Repeated Conflict Resolution: You might need to resolve the same conflict multiple times if it spans several commits.
• Higher Complexity: The rebase process is more complex, especially when conflicts arise.
• Loss of Timeline Accuracy: The resulting history doesn't show when work actually happened or when integration occurred.

When to Use Each Approach

Choose Merge When:

• Working on a Public/Shared Branch: If others are using the branch, rebasing could cause problems when they try to sync.
• Preserving Chronological History Matters: When the exact sequence and timing of changes needs to be preserved.
• Creating a Merge Record is Desired: When you want to explicitly mark where and when code integration happened.
• Simplicity is Preferred: For developers less comfortable with Git's more advanced features.

Choose Rebase When:

• Working on a Private Feature Branch: When you're the only one working on the branch and it hasn't been pushed yet.
• Keeping a Clean, Linear History is Priority: When you want your project history to tell a clear, sequential story.
• Preparing to Merge to Main: To ensure your feature branch is up to date before creating a pull request.
• Cleaning Up Work-in-Progress Commits: Combined with interactive rebase (-i flag), it's perfect for polishing commit history before sharing.

A Common Workflow Combining Both

Many teams adopt a workflow that uses both approaches:

• Use rebase to keep your feature branch updated with the latest from main during development.
• Use merge (often a squash merge) when finally integrating your feature into the main branch.

This gives you the benefits of a clean feature history during development, while still maintaining a clear integration point when the feature is complete.

Practical Tips for Success

For Rebasing:

• Never rebase shared branches: Follow the golden rule of rebasing - "Never rebase a branch that others might be working on."
• Stash uncommitted changes first: Make sure your working directory is clean before rebasing.
• Take it slow with conflicts: When conflicts arise, address them carefully one commit at a time.
• Use interactive rebasing for cleanup: Try git rebase -i to squash, reorder, or edit commits before sharing your work.

For Merging:

• Keep feature branches short-lived: Merge frequently to avoid large, complex merge conflicts.
• Write clear merge commit messages: Explain what's being merged and why, especially for significant features.
• Consider using --no-ff flag: This forces a merge commit even for fast-forward merges, maintaining a record of the feature branch's existence.
• Review the result after merging: Check that everything works as expected after the merge is complete.

Conclusion

Both rebasing and merging are powerful tools in Git, each with its own strengths and appropriate use cases. Understanding the differences helps you make informed decisions about how to manage your project's history.

For newer developers, it's often best to start with merging until you're comfortable with Git's core concepts. As you grow more confident, experiment with rebasing in safe contexts (like personal feature branches) to understand its benefits firsthand.
Remember, the goal isn't to dogmatically follow one approach or the other, but to thoughtfully choose the right tool for each situation based on your team's needs and your project's requirements.

Do you have a minute?

We just launched Aviator Agents – an LLM-powered framework that automates large-scale code migrations directly in GitHub.

These agents work like engineers—tracking references, understanding dependencies, breaking down complex changes, and even verifying builds. No manual refactoring, no extra setup—just seamless automation.

🔥 Supports OpenAI o1, Claude Sonnet 3.5, Deepseek R1, and Llama 3.1
🔗 Fully integrated with GitHub—no need for custom-build environments

We’d love for you to try it out and share your feedback! Sign up for early access!

Can't wait to hear what y'all think! 💡👨‍💻