Git Merge vs. Rebase: What’s the Difference?

I have been using Git for a while and I often see the terms 'merge' and 'rebase'. I'm a bit confused about what each one is for and when to use it. Could someone shed some light on this?

Add Comment
2 Answer(s)
In Git, 'merge' and 'rebase' are two different ways of integrating changes from one branch into another. 'Merge' takes the contents of a source branch and integrates it with the target branch. When a merge happens, it always results in a new commit because it creates a new snapshot that reflects the combined changes from the merged branches. This maintains a history of all commits from all branches chronologically. 'Rebase' on the other hand, moves or combines a series of commits to a new base commit. Essentially, it's taking the changes made in the source branch and reapplying them on the target branch. This helps to create a linear, easier to follow project history. When to use which? 'Merge' is a good option when you want to combine code from two different branches and your team needs to see the history completely and chronologically as it is. But if the commit history is not that important and you want a cleaner, linear history then 'Rebase' is the best option. Remember: With Rebase, it's possible to change commit history, which is good for making a more organized and readable history. However, it can also be dangerous if not used carefully. In a nutshell, both 'merge' and 'rebase' have their own advantages and it's up to you and your team's preferences to decide when to use which.
Answered on August 3, 2023.
Add Comment
Git is a very powerful version control system. Two of its main features, 'merge' and 'rebase', are used to integrate changes from one branch to another. Understanding the difference between them will help you make an informed decision about which to use in different situations. 1. Git Merge: 'Merge' is a commonly used option to combine code from two distinctive branches into one. When you perform a 'merge', let's say from a feature branch into the master branch, Git creates a new commit in the master branch which contains the history of both branches. Characteristics: - It maintains the context and history of your branch. - The commit history is non-linear and thus can be complex, making it harder to simplify or clean up commit history. - Ideally suited when you want to combine code from two different branches and preserve the commit history without altering it. 2. Git Rebase: 'Rebase' on the other hand, is a way to integrate changes from one branch to another by applying or "replaying" them on top of another branch. Characteristics: - It creates a "clean" history as commits are moved from one branch and placed on top of another branch. - It's suitable for situations where you've been doing parallel work in your feature branch and want to make it appear as if those changes are made sequentially on top of the changes in the master branch. - During conflict resolution, 'rebase' might require more of your attention than 'merge'. - However, remember that 'rebase' alters commit history, which can be problematic if others are simultaneously working on the same branch. In summary, choosing between 'merge' and 'rebase' depends on whether you want to maintain the existing branching/commit history ('merge'), or have a streamlined, linear commit history ('rebase'). It's generally recommended to use 'merge' when combining code into a shared or public branch, and use 'rebase' to keep your personal or feature branch up-to-date with the latest code of the main branch. Always remember to consider your team's workflow and preferences before deciding which to use. For a beginner, it is good to get comfortable with 'merge' before moving onto 'rebase', and you should definitely master resolving merge conflicts before stepping into the complicated world of rebases.
Answered on August 24, 2023.
Add Comment

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.