The Core Difference

Both `git merge` and `git rebase` integrate changes from one branch into another — but they do it differently.

Merge

Merge creates a special commit (merge commit) that has two parents:

git checkout main

git merge feature-login

**History:** Non-linear, preserves exactly what happened and when.

**Pros:** Accurate timeline, safe for shared branches, easy to undo.

**Cons:** Cluttered history with merge bubbles.

Rebase rewrites commits from your branch on top of another:

git checkout feature-login

git rebase main

**History:** Linear, clean — looks like work was done sequentially.

**Pros:** Clean git log, easier bisecting, no merge bubbles.

**Cons:** Rewrites history, dangerous on shared branches.

- Merging a long-lived feature branch into main

- Working on a shared branch with other developers

- When preserving exact chronology matters

- In public repositories where history is sacred

- Updating your feature branch with latest main changes

- Cleaning up commit history before a pull request

- Personal branches that no one else has pulled

- When you want a linear, readable git log

Many teams use this workflow:

1. **Rebase** feature branches onto main daily to stay current

2. **Squash** commits into logical units

3. **Merge** (with --no-ff) into main to mark the feature

This keeps history clean while preserving collaboration context.