"Should I merge or rebase?" is one of the most debated questions in Git. Both achieve the same goal - integrating changes from one branch to another - but they do it differently and leave different histories. This guide will help you make the right choice for every situation.
💡
What You'll Learn: In this comprehensive guide, you'll master:
- The fundamental differences between merge and rebase
- How each affects your Git history
- Decision framework for choosing the right strategy
- Team workflow recommendations
- Common scenarios and best practices
- Hybrid approaches used in professional teams
The Core Difference
SAME SCENARIO:
master: A---B---C
\
feature: D---E
=======================================================
MERGE RESULT:
master: A---B---C-------M
\ /
feature: D---E---+
History shows: "feature was developed in parallel
and merged at point M"
=======================================================
REBASE + MERGE RESULT:
master: A---B---C---D'---E'
History shows: "D and E were developed after C"
(even though they weren't)
Quick Comparison Table
| Aspect | Merge | Rebase |
|---|---|---|
| History | Non-linear (preserves branches) | Linear (hides branches) |
| Commits | Adds merge commit | Rewrites commits (new hashes) |
| Safety | Safe for shared branches | Dangerous for shared branches |
| Complexity | Simple to understand | Can be confusing |
| Traceability | Shows when features merged | Shows clean progression |
| Conflicts | Resolve once | May resolve multiple times |
Understanding the Trade-offs
Merge: Preserves True History
Pros:
- Shows exactly when and how branches were integrated
- Safe to use on shared branches
- Easier to revert an entire feature (revert the merge commit)
- No commit rewriting = no coordination issues
Cons:
- Creates "noisy" history with merge commits
- Branch structure can be confusing in large projects
git logshows interleaved commits from different features
Rebase: Creates Clean History
Pros:
- Linear, easy-to-read history
- No merge commits cluttering the log
- Bisecting bugs is easier with linear history
- Each commit tells a clear story
Cons:
- Rewrites commit hashes (coordination issues)
- Dangerous on shared branches
- Loses information about when branches existed
- Conflicts may need to be resolved multiple times
Decision Framework
Use this flowchart to decide:
Which strategy should I use?
|
Is this a shared/public branch?
(main, master, develop, release)
|
+-------------+-------------+
| |
YES NO
| |
USE MERGE Is my work pushed?
(always safe) |
+-------------+-------------+
| |
YES NO
| |
Have others pulled REBASE is safe
my commits? (your choice)
|
+-------------+-------------+
| |
YES NO
| |
USE MERGE REBASE is possible
(don't disrupt (but communicate
others) with team first)
Scenario-Based Recommendations
Scenario 1: Integrating Feature into Main
Situation: Your feature branch is complete and ready to merge into main.
main: A---B---C
\
feature: D---E---F
Recommendation: MERGE with --no-ff
git checkout main
git merge --no-ff feature
Why:
- Main is a shared branch
--no-ffcreates a merge commit even if fast-forward possible- Easy to see when the feature was integrated
- Easy to revert the entire feature if needed
Result:
main: A---B---C-------M
\ /
feature: D---E---F
Scenario 2: Keeping Feature Branch Updated
Situation: Main has new commits and you want them in your feature branch.
main: A---B---C---G---H (new commits)
\
feature: D---E---F (your work)
Recommendation: REBASE (if feature is not shared)
git checkout feature
git rebase main
Why:
- Your feature branch is personal
- Puts your work on top of latest main
- Avoids unnecessary merge commits in your branch
- Makes eventual merge to main cleaner
Result:
main: A---B---C---G---H
\
feature: D'---E'---F'
Scenario 3: Cleaning Up Before Pull Request
Situation: You have messy commits and want to clean up before PR review.
feature: A---B---"fix typo"---"oops"---"actually fix"---"done"
Recommendation: INTERACTIVE REBASE
git rebase -i main
# Squash the messy commits into logical units
Why:
- Reviewers see clean, logical commits
- History tells a clear story
- Easier to understand and review
Result:
feature: A---B---"implement user authentication"
Scenario 4: Collaborating on a Shared Feature Branch
Situation: Multiple developers working on the same feature branch.
feature: A---B---C (you committed C)
(colleague committed D, E while you worked)
Recommendation: MERGE
git checkout feature
git pull # This will merge
Why:
- Branch is shared; rebasing would rewrite their commits
- Merge is safe for collaboration
- Everyone's work is preserved
Scenario 5: Long-Running Feature Branch
Situation: Feature development takes weeks, main keeps advancing.
Recommendation: PERIODIC REBASE (if branch is yours only)
# Weekly or after significant main changes
git checkout feature
git rebase main
Or PERIODIC MERGE (if branch is shared):
git checkout feature
git merge main
Why:
- Keeps your branch close to main
- Reduces merge conflicts at final integration
- Rebase for solo work; merge for team work
Team Workflow Strategies
Strategy 1: Merge Only (Simple Teams)
Rule: Always use merge, never rebase shared branches
Workflow:
1. Create feature branch from main
2. Work on feature
3. Merge main into feature to update (if needed)
4. Create PR
5. Merge PR into main
Pros: Simple, safe, no coordination needed
Cons: Messy history with many merge commits
Strategy 2: Rebase + Merge (Clean History)
Rule: Rebase personal branches, merge to shared branches
Workflow:
1. Create feature branch from main
2. Work on feature
3. Rebase onto main before PR (git rebase main)
4. Create PR
5. Merge (or fast-forward merge) to main
Pros: Clean linear history on main
Cons: Requires discipline, can't rebase after push
Strategy 3: Squash Merge (GitHub/GitLab Style)
Rule: Squash all feature commits into one on merge
Workflow:
1. Create feature branch
2. Make many commits (messy is OK)
3. Create PR
4. Use "Squash and merge" button
5. All commits become one commit on main
Pros: Very clean main history, messy branches OK
Cons: Loses detailed commit history
Git Log Comparison
After Multiple Merges
git log --oneline --graph
* a1b2c3d Merge branch 'feature-z'
|\
| * d4e5f6g Add feature z
| * h7i8j9k Feature z work
|/
* k1l2m3n Merge branch 'feature-y'
|\
| * o4p5q6r Add feature y
|/
* s7t8u9v Merge branch 'feature-x'
|\
| * w1x2y3z Add feature x
|/
* a1b2c3d Initial commit
After Rebases + Fast-Forward Merges
git log --oneline --graph
* w1x2y3z Add feature z
* o4p5q6r Add feature y
* a1b2c3d Add feature x
* s7t8u9v Initial commit
Much cleaner, but you can't see when features were integrated.
Best Practices Summary
DO:
+ Merge into shared branches (main, develop)
+ Rebase your personal feature branches onto main
+ Use --no-ff for feature merges to main (creates merge commit)
+ Squash messy commits before PR
+ Communicate with team before rebasing pushed commits
+ Use rebase -i to clean up local work
DON'T:
- Rebase commits that others have pulled
- Force push to shared branches
- Rebase main/master/develop
- Rebase in the middle of a collaborative branch
- Ignore team conventions
Common Team Conventions
Convention 1: GitHub Flow
main: A---B---M1---M2---M3
/ / /
features: C D E
- Short-lived feature branches
- Merge with merge commit (or squash)
- main always deployable
Convention 2: Git Flow
develop: A---B---M1---M2---C---M3
/ / \ \
features: D E release---M---main
- Feature branches from develop
- Release branches for stabilization
- main only has release merges
Convention 3: Trunk-Based
main: A---B---C---D---E---F---G
- Very short-lived branches (hours, not days)
- Frequent integration to main
- Feature flags for incomplete work
Quick Reference
# MERGE COMMANDS
git merge feature # Merge feature into current branch
git merge --no-ff feature # Force merge commit
git merge --squash feature # Squash into one commit
# REBASE COMMANDS
git rebase main # Rebase current onto main
git rebase -i HEAD~n # Interactive rebase
git rebase --onto A B C # Advanced rebase
# USEFUL FOR DECIDING
git log --oneline --graph --all # See branch structure
git log main..feature # Commits in feature not in main
Decision Cheat Sheet
| Situation | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Merging feature to main | git merge --no-ff |
| Updating feature from main (solo) | git rebase main |
| Updating feature from main (team) | git merge main |
| Cleaning up before PR | git rebase -i |
| Shared branch with conflicts | git merge |
| Just pushed, need to update | git merge (don't rebase) |
| Local only, want clean history | git rebase |
Summary
The merge vs rebase debate isn't about which is "better" - it's about using the right tool for the situation:
- Merge when working with shared branches or when you want to preserve the true history of how code evolved
- Rebase when working on personal branches and you want a clean, linear history
Most professional teams use a hybrid approach: rebase to keep feature branches updated and clean, then merge (or squash merge) to integrate into shared branches.
The most important thing is consistency - pick a strategy with your team and stick to it!
