Git provides two methods for integrating changes from one branch into another branch: merge and rebase. However how they implement modifications and the ensuing commit history vary.
By establishing a new commit with two parent commits—one from the current branch and one from the branch being merged—merge integrates the modifications from one branch into another branch. As a result, the commit history resembles a tree with many branches.
By replaying the modifications from the branch being rebased onto the current branch, rebase applies the changes from one branch onto another branch. As a result, the commit history is linear and the modifications from the rebased branch seem to have been made directly on the current branch.
Here are some key differences between merge and rebase:
- Change history: While rebase replays changes from the other branch onto the current branch, merge creates a new commit that merges the changes from the other branch into the current branch, producing a linear commit history.
- Complexity: Rebase can be more complex and requires careful management of conflicts and commits, whereas merge is typically simpler and easier to use.
- Branch management: Rebase is helpful for maintaining a clear, linear history in short-lived branches while merge is good for merging long-lived feature branches.
- Collaboration: Since merge maintains the original commit history and makes it simpler to understand who did what, it is preferable for developers to use merge when working together. Rebasing can make it more difficult to identify the contributors to a specific branch, particularly if there are conflicts that need to be resolved.
In conclusion, merging changes from long-lived branches or working with other developers is a good choice, while rebasing is helpful for maintaining a clear and linear history in branches with short lifespans. In the end, your project’s requirements and workflow will determine whether you should merge or rebase.
