git merge and git rebase

[sudoUgando]

what is the difference between git merge and git rebase. When would you use one over the other?

[EimanTahir027]

what is the difference between git merge and git rebase. When would you use one over the other?

git merge
What it does: Creates a new merge commit that joins two branches together. The feature branch's history is preserved intact, and a merge commit records that the branches were combined.
History: Non-linear — you see the actual branching and merging pattern.
Safety: Non-destructive. Existing commits on either branch are never altered.
text
A---B---C feature
/
D---E---F-------G main ← merge commit G
git rebase
What it does: Takes the commits from your feature branch and replays them on top of the target branch, rewriting history as if you started working from the latest point.
History: Linear and clean — looks like a straight line of commits.
Safety: Destructive to commit history (rewrites commit hashes). Never rebase commits that others have already pulled.
text
Before:
A---B---C feature
/
D---E---F main

After (rebase feature onto main):
A'--B'--C' feature
/
D---E---F main
When to use which
Use git merge when:

You're working on a shared/public branch that others are also using.
You want to preserve the exact history (including who branched when).
You're finishing a feature and bringing it into a shared integration branch like main.
You want a record that a merge took place (common in release workflows).
Use git rebase when:

You're working on a local/private feature branch and just want to incorporate upstream changes.
You want a clean, linear history before opening a pull request (many teams prefer this).
You're cleaning up your own local commits before sharing them (also rebase -i for squashing/fixing up).
Common workflow
Many teams do both: rebase your feature branch on main as you work to stay up-to-date and keep a clean history, then use git merge --no-ff when merging into main to create a merge commit that groups the feature's work together.