✅ 1. Git Merge – The Safe & Simple Option
🔹 Purpose: Combine two branches while preserving every commit exactly as it happened.
🔹 Best For: Teams that want a complete historical record, showing exactly when and where branches were merged.
🔹 Why It Matters: You can trace decisions, debug past changes, and understand the development timeline.
💡 Real-World Use Case:
You finish feature-branch and want to bring it into main without changing commit history. Everyone sees the exact same logs.
📌 Command:
git checkout main
git merge feature-branch
🛠 Pros:
✔ Keeps full history
✔ Safe for shared branches
✔ Great for collaboration
⚠ Cons:
❌ Commit history can get cluttered with merge commits
✅ 2. Git Rebase – The Clean & Linear Option
🔹 Purpose: Rewrite commit history so it looks like your work was done on top of the latest main branch — no messy merge commits.
🔹 Best For: Solo branches or small feature work where you want a smooth, linear commit log.
🔹 Why It Matters: Makes git log easier to read and understand; avoids unnecessary branching noise.
💡 Real-World Use Case:
You’ve been working on a feature for a week, but main has moved ahead. You rebase to apply your commits after the latest commits in main, as if you started from there.
📌 Command:
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main
🛠 Pros:
✔ Clean commit history
✔ Easier to read logs
✔ Good for preparing a branch before merging
⚠ Cons:
❌ Changes commit IDs — dangerous for shared branches
❌ Can cause conflicts during rebase that need to be resolved manually
⚠ Golden Rule
Never rebase shared branches — it rewrites history and can break other developers’ work.
✅ When to Use Which
🔹 Merge → You want safety, collaboration, and full history
🔹 Rebase → You want a clean, linear commit log before merging
🚀 Pro Tip
💡 Some teams combine both:
1️⃣ Rebase locally to tidy your branch
2️⃣ Merge into main so the integration point is visible in history
✅ Which do you use more in your workflow — merge or rebase?
Top comments (0)