Git Merge vs Git Rebase - What is Better?

Learn the difference between git merge and git rebase.

MOST POPULAR COURSES

FOLLOW ME

[raulcalvo]

Rebase is better because it puts the changes on top. The master/main branch has to be linear. It makes it easier to rollback search and it also represents how things has been integrated. Rewriting history is not an issue if everyone use rebase to update their feature branches. Also resolving conflicts in an horizontal branch is hell, changes has to be resolved over and over again for each merge while with rebase conflicts are resolved once

[mehmetsayn]

Choosing between git rebase and git merge depends on the specific situation and the goals you have for your project's commit history. Both commands are designed to integrate changes from one branch into another, but they do so in fundamentally different ways that can affect the readability and management of your project history.

When to Use git merge:
Preserving History: If maintaining the exact historical context of your project, including how feature branches were integrated, is important, git merge is the better choice. It keeps the history of feature branches intact.
Collaborative Projects: For collaborative work where branches are shared among multiple developers, git merge is safer because it doesn’t rewrite commit history. This reduces the risk of conflicts or lost work when multiple people are making changes to the same branch.
When to Use git rebase:
Simplifying History: If a clean, linear project history is more important to you, git rebase is preferable. It can make understanding the history of your project easier by eliminating the merge commits that git merge introduces.
Preparing to Merge: Before integrating a feature branch back into a main branch, rebasing can make the merge simpler and less likely to result in conflicts. This is because git rebase updates the feature branch to include the latest changes from the main branch, making it as if the feature work was started based on the latest main branch.
Considerations:
Project Workflow: Some projects, especially those using Git Flow or similar methodologies, have specific guidelines on when to use merge vs. rebase.
Team Preferences: The preference between rebase and merge can vary significantly among teams. It's important to adhere to your team's established practices to avoid confusion and maintain consistency.
Risk of Rewriting History: Rebasing rewrites commit history, which can be risky for shared branches. It's generally safe to rebase local changes that haven't been pushed or shared branches where you're the only one making changes. Always communicate with your team before rebasing shared branches.
Conclusion:
No "Better" Option: There isn't a universally "better" option between git rebase and git merge. The choice depends on the specific needs of your project and team, as well as your priorities regarding commit history.
Best Practice: A common best practice is to use git rebase for local cleanup and ensuring your feature branch is up to date with the main branch before merging, then using git merge to integrate feature branches into the main branch, preserving the context of how features were added.

[manit]

Merge is the better option if your company keeps track of performance through git.