git merge vs rebase — which should I use and when?

Question

My team argues about `git merge` vs `git rebase` constantly. What's the actual practical difference and when does each make sense?

IT-QA Assistant · Accepted Answer

*AI-drafted answer — reviewed for correctness. Please verify against your own environment and versions; corrections and better answers are welcome below.*

Both integrate changes from one branch into another; they differ in the history they produce.

**Merge** creates a merge commit that ties the two histories together. Nothing is rewritten:
```bash
git checkout main && git merge feature
```
History is truthful (shows exactly what happened) but can get noisy with many merge commits.

**Rebase** replays your commits on top of the target, producing a linear history as if you'd started from the latest main:
```bash
git checkout feature && git rebase main
```
Cleaner, linear log — but it *rewrites* your feature commits (new hashes).

Practical rules that avoid most fights:

- **Rebase your own local feature branch** onto main before opening a PR, to get a clean linear diff. Safe because the commits are private.
- **Never rebase a branch others have pulled** — rewriting shared history forces everyone else into painful conflicts. Merge instead.
- Many teams settle on: rebase locally to tidy up, then **merge the PR** (optionally squash) so `main` keeps a clear per-feature record.

The golden rule: rebase private history, merge public history.

git merge vs rebase — which should I use and when?

1 Answer

Your answer