Git Rebase and Git Merge are two different approaches for integrating changes from one branch into another in Git, each with its use cases and implications:
Git Rebase
- Process: Rebase rewrites the commit history by applying changes from one branch onto the tip of another branch.
- Use Case: Ideal for cleaning up and linearising the history of a feature branch before integrating it into a main branch.
- Pros:
- Results in a cleaner, linear commit history.
- It avoids unnecessary merge commits.
- Cons:
- It can complicate history if used on public branches.
- It is not intuitive for beginners; there is a risk of losing commits if not used carefully.
Git Merge
- Process: Merge combines the histories of different branches. It creates a new “merge commit” that ties together the histories of the merged branches.
- Use Case: Commonly used to integrate completed features or fixes from one branch into another (e.g., merging a feature branch into
main). - Pros:
- Preserves the complete history and context of the integrated branches.
- Safer and more intuitive, especially for collaborative work.
- Cons:
- This can lead to a more complex and non-linear commit history.
- Merge commits can clutter the history.
Choosing Between Rebase and Merge
- Rebase is preferred for maintaining a clean and linear project history, often used internally by developers when working on a feature.
- Merge is more suited for integrating completed work and is safer for collaborative branches, ensuring that the history of all contributions is preserved.
In practice, a combination of both approaches is often used. For example, a developer might use rebase to tidy up their feature branch and then use merge to integrate these changes into the main branch. This is typically what I tend to do.
