Understanding the Differences Between git merge and git rebase

In this article, a senior architect explains the purpose and workflow of git merge and git rebase , illustrating how both commands integrate commits from one branch into another.

git merge example: create a project on GitLab, push a test file, make two local commits, and simulate another developer’s commits directly on the remote. When pushing, a conflict occurs and the usual solution is git pull = git fetch + git merge , followed by manual conflict resolution and a new merge commit.

git rebase example: using git pull --rebase (equivalent to git fetch + git rebase ) rewrites the local commits onto the latest remote commits, producing a linear history without a merge commit. Conflict handling during rebase involves git add and git rebase --continue , or interactive rebasing to squash commits.

The article also notes that rebase should not be used on branches that have been pushed and shared with others, as it rewrites history, whereas merge preserves the true commit chronology.

Summary

git merge combines branches and creates a merge commit, keeping the original history.

git rebase reapplies local changes onto the target branch, resulting in a linear history but rewriting commits.

Both commands are useful; the choice depends on team workflow and the importance of commit timestamps.