Understanding Git Rebase vs Merge: When to Use Which
Few topics in software development spark more heated discussion than git rebase vs git merge. Both integrate changes from one branch into another — but they do it differently, and the choice matters.
Merge
git merge creates a new “merge commit” that joins two branch histories. The full history of both branches is preserved, including exactly when they diverged and when they came back together.
git checkout main
git merge feature/my-feature
Best for: shared/public branches where preserving history is important. The audit trail is clear and non-destructive.
Rebase
git rebase replays your commits on top of another branch, rewriting their history to appear as if they were always based on the latest code.
git checkout feature/my-feature
git rebase main
The result is a clean, linear history — easier to read with git log, and bisect with git bisect.
Best for: local/private branches you haven’t pushed yet, or when your team values a clean linear history.
The Golden Rule
Never rebase commits that exist on a remote branch others are working from. Rewriting shared history causes serious headaches for your teammates.
My Workflow
I rebase locally to keep my feature branch current with main while I’m working, then use a merge (or a squash merge) when the feature is ready to land. Best of both worlds.
About
Network Entropology (n.): The study of chaos in data network systems; the discipline concerned with understanding how order degrades, complexity accumulates, and entropy propagates across connected infrastructure, and the practice of bringing order back to it. A field that exists whether or not its practitioners know they are in it.