Git Rebase vs. Merge: Key Differences Explained

Git Rebase vs. Merge: Key Differences Explained

In the world of version control, Git is the top choice. However, it comes with some confusing options. When integrating changes from one branch to another, you have two main choices: merge and rebase. Both achieve the same goal, but they do it in very different ways. Let's untangle the differences between Git rebase and merge.


Think of merging like a Venn diagram. You take two circles representing branches and overlap them, creating a new commit that includes changes from both branches. This new commit has two parent commits, one from each branch, which makes it clear how the branches have diverged and converged over time. This creates a clear and transparent history, showing exactly when branches split and came back together.

Merging is often considered the safer option, especially for public branches like master or main. This is because merging avoids rewriting the commit history, which can be crucial when multiple developers are working on the same codebase. By preserving the original sequence of commits, merging ensures that everyone’s work remains intact and traceable. This helps prevent conflicts and confusion, making it easier to understand the development history and debug issues if they arise.


Rebasing rewrites the commit history. It takes your feature branch and replays all its commits on top of the latest master branch. This process essentially attaches your changes to a new branch point, creating a linear and streamlined history. The primary benefit of rebasing is that it results in a cleaner, more readable project history, free from the clutter of multiple merge commits.

When you rebase, Git applies each of your feature branch's commits one by one onto the master branch. This means that instead of having a series of diverging and converging branches, you end up with a straight line of commits. This linear history can make it much easier to follow the progression of changes and understand the development process.

Rebasing is particularly useful for private branches where you are the only one working on the code. In these cases, you can rebase as often as you like to keep your branch up to date with the latest changes from the master branch. This ensures that when you finally merge your feature branch into master, the history is clean and straightforward.

So, which one should you use?

  • Use Merge:

    • For public branches like master.

    • When collaborating with others to avoid conflicts.

    • If you want a clear picture of the branching history.

  • Use Rebase:

    • For private branches where history clarity matters.

    • To create a linear, streamlined history.

    • Before pushing your branch to a public repository (be sure to rebase locally first).


Both merging and rebasing have their place in a developer's toolkit. Merging is ideal for maintaining a clear and collaborative history, especially on public branches. Rebasing, on the other hand, is perfect for creating a clean, linear history on private branches. By understanding the strengths and appropriate use cases for each, you can make more informed decisions and keep your project's history both functional and readable. Ultimately, choosing the right strategy depends on your project's needs and your team's workflow.


  1. "Git - Book." Git SCM.

  2. "Merging vs. Rebasing." Atlassian Git Tutorial.

  3. "Git Rebase vs. Merge: What's the Diff?" GitKraken Blog.

Did you find this article valuable?

Support Christian Lehnert by becoming a sponsor. Any amount is appreciated!