There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
| Item Details | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Learn how Git merge and rebase combine branch changes, how their commit histories differ, and which approach makes sense for your development workflow.
October 20, 2026
Imagine you are building a new feature for a website while another developer updates the main application. Both of you are working in separate Git branches, and eventually, your changes need to come together.
This is where Git merge and Git rebase become useful. Both help integrate changes from different branches, but they handle commit history differently. Merge preserves the existing branch history, while rebase replays your commits on top of another branch, creating a different history.
Understanding this difference helps you keep projects organised, collaborate safely and avoid unnecessary confusion when working with GitHub or a shared codebase.
Git merge combines changes from one branch into another. It brings the two lines of development together without rewriting the existing commits.
Suppose you create a branch called feature-login to build a login page. While you work on it, another developer adds a new feature to the main branch. Once your login page is ready, you can merge your branch into main.
Run the following commands:
Example: Merge a feature branch
git switch main
git merge feature-loginThe first command switches to the main branch. The second integrates the changes from feature-login into the branch you currently have checked out.
If the branches have diverged, Git may create a merge commit to record the integration. If the target branch has not moved ahead independently, Git may perform a fast-forward merge instead. Therefore, merging does not always create an additional commit.
Git rebase takes commits from your current branch and replays them on top of another base commit. Instead of recording the integration through a merge commit, it creates a new sequence of commits based on the updated branch.
Consider the same login-page example. You started working on feature-login, but main has received new commits since you created your branch. You want to bring your feature up to date while keeping the history linear.
First, switch to your feature branch and then rebase it onto main:
Example: Rebase a feature branch
git switch feature-login
git rebase mainGit identifies the commits unique to feature-login and attempts to replay them on top of the latest commit in main. The resulting history looks more like a straight line rather than two branches joining together.
One detail matters here: rebasing creates new commit identities for the replayed commits. Even when the code changes remain equivalent, the rewritten commits have different identities from the original ones.
The biggest difference is how the two commands represent the integration in Git history. The following table summarises the practical trade-offs.
| Comparison | Git Merge | Git Rebase |
|---|---|---|
| Basic operation | Combines branch histories | Replays commits on a new base |
| Commit history | Preserves existing commits | Creates new commits for replayed changes |
| Merge commit | May create one | Does not normally create one for the rebase itself |
| History style | Can show branching and integration points | Usually produces a more linear history |
| Shared branches | Generally safer for integrating shared work | Requires caution if commits have already been shared |
| Common use | Integrating completed work | Updating or cleaning up a feature branch |
Neither command automatically produces better code. If the same changes are integrated successfully, the final file contents can be identical even though the commit histories differ.
Suppose main contains commits A and B. You create a feature branch from B and add commit C. Meanwhile, another developer adds commit D to main.
The history now looks like this:
C (feature-login)
/
A -- B -- D (main)Your feature and main have diverged because each branch contains a different commit after their common starting point.
If you merge main into feature-login, Git combines the histories and may create a merge commit M.
C -------- M (feature-login)
/ /
A -- B -------- D (main)The graph records that your feature work and the new main-branch work came together. This can be useful when reviewing how a project evolved.
If you rebase feature-login onto main, Git replays C on top of D. The new commit is represented as C' because it has a new identity.
A -- B -- D -- C' (feature-login)The history is now linear. The original commit C is replaced on your feature branch by its rebased counterpart C'. This is why rebasing should not be treated as merely another spelling of merging.
Both merge and rebase can encounter conflicts when Git cannot automatically reconcile changes, such as when two branches modify the same lines in incompatible ways.
During a merge, resolve the affected files, stage the resolutions and complete the merge if Git requires a merge commit:
git status
git add .
git merge --continueDuring a rebase, resolve the conflicts and continue replaying the commits:
git status
git add .
git rebase --continueIf you need to abandon an in-progress rebase, you can use git rebase --abort. For a merge, git merge --abort can attempt to return the working tree to its pre-merge state.
Always inspect git status and review the changed files before continuing. Do not assume that choosing one command eliminates conflicts. Both approaches can require manual resolution.
Choose merge when preserving the actual integration history matters, especially when several developers have already shared their commits. It is also a sensible choice when your team explicitly uses merge commits to document feature integration.
Choose rebase when you are updating your own local feature branch and want to replay your work on top of the latest main branch. It is particularly useful before sharing commits, when you want a clean sequence of changes for review.
A practical rule: merge shared work; rebase your own unpublished work when a linear history is useful. Follow your team's repository conventions, since different projects may prefer different workflows.
Rebasing changes commit history. If you rebase commits that other developers have already pulled and built work on, those developers may find that their local histories no longer match the remote branch.
Rewriting published history can require complicated recovery steps and may lead to duplicated or confusing commits. Avoid rebasing shared commits unless your team has coordinated the change and understands how to recover.
If you need to update a branch that has already been shared, merging is often the safer default. Before performing a history-changing operation, check the branch status and make sure you understand which commits are local and which are published.
Neither is universally better. Merge preserves existing commit history and records integration, while rebase creates a linear sequence by replaying commits. The right choice depends on whether history preservation or linearity is more useful for your workflow.
Rebase is intended to replay commits, not simply delete your work. However, conflicts or incorrect resolutions can change the resulting code. Review your working tree and commit history, and consider creating a backup branch before a complicated rebase.
Yes. Many workflows use rebase to update local feature branches and merge to integrate completed work into a shared branch. The important thing is to agree on team conventions and avoid rewriting commits other people already depend on.
Not necessarily. Rebasing may expose conflicts while replaying individual commits, whereas merging reconciles the branch histories together. The number and difficulty of conflicts depend on the changes being integrated and how the branches evolved.
A standard git pull fetches remote changes and integrates them using the configured pull strategy, commonly merge. git pull --rebase fetches remote changes and rebases your local, unshared commits on top of the updated remote branch. The exact result depends on your repository state and Git configuration.
Git merge and Git rebase solve the same broad problem of integrating work across branches, but they preserve different kinds of history. Merge keeps the existing commits and may record a merge commit, while rebase replays commits to create a more linear history.
If you are working with a team, use merge when preserving shared history is important. If you are updating your own unpublished feature branch, rebase can help keep the commit history organised.
Once you understand how each command changes the commit graph, choosing between them becomes much easier. The goal is not to use the more advanced command. It is to choose the approach that keeps your codebase understandable and your team's workflow safe.