How do you decide between Git rebase vs merge?
When is it recommended to use Git rebase vs merge in a workflow?
After a successful rebase, do I still need to perform a merge? How do these two approaches impact commit history and collaboration?
Been using Git for years, and this is my go-to rule when deciding between git rebase vs merge."
Use Git Rebase when:
You want a clean, linear history without merge commits.
You’re syncing your feature branch with the latest main.
You prefer a sequential, polished commit structure.
How to do it:
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main
This moves your feature branch commits on top of the latest main, making it seem like you developed them there.
Caution: Never rebase shared branches—rewriting history can create conflicts!
Rebasing is great, but let’s talk about why you might prefer git merge instead."
Use Git Merge when:
You’re collaborating with a team, and multiple people contribute to the same branch.
You want to preserve commit history for debugging.
Your project follows a feature-branch workflow.
How to do it:
git checkout main
git merge feature-branch
This creates a merge commit, keeping all history intact while integrating changes.
Best practice: Use merge commits when combining long-lived branches like main and dev—it retains historical context.
Why choose one when you can get the best of both? Here’s how to combine git rebase vs merge for optimal workflow."
Use both when:
You want clean commits but also preserve branch info.
Your team prefers rebasing before merging to avoid redundant merge commits.
How to do it:
Step 1: Rebase first to update your feature branch
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main
Step 2: Merge with --no-ff to retain branch history
git checkout main
git merge --no-ff feature-branch
This keeps a linear history inside your feature branch while still having a dedicated merge commit when integrating into main.