Git Merge vs Git Rebase: Which One Should You Use?

As developers, one of the most important tools we have at our disposal is Git. It helps us manage our code, collaborate with teammates, and track changes over time. But when it comes to merging changes from one branch to another, Git gives us a couple of options: merge and rebase.

In this post, I’ll walk through the differences between Git Rebase and Git Merge, explain why I prefer rebase for most situations, and discuss when it might make sense to use merge instead.

What is Git Merge?

Git Merge is a simple way to combine changes from one branch into another. It’s commonly used to integrate feature branches into the main branch, or to bring in updates from main to a feature branch.

When you run git merge, Git looks at the changes in both branches and creates a new commit that combines them. If there are conflicts, you’ll need to resolve them manually before completing the merge.

Pros of Git Merge:

• Preserves commit history: Every commit in both branches is kept intact, and a new “merge commit” is created.
• Simple to use: Git merge is safe and easy to understand, even for beginners.
• No rewriting history: Merge doesn’t modify existing commits, so it’s great for teams that want to avoid rewriting history.

Cons of Git Merge:

• Messy commit history: If you merge frequently, your Git history can get cluttered with merge commits.
• Difficult to track: Large projects with lots of merges can create a complex history, making it harder to follow the flow of changes.

What is Git Rebase?

Git Rebase, on the other hand, is a way of moving or combining a sequence of commits to a new base commit. In simpler terms, rebase takes your changes from your feature branch and applies them onto the latest version of main—as if you were building the feature from scratch on top of the most up-to-date code.

When you run git rebase, Git rewrites the commit history of your branch by applying each commit in sequence. This results in a linear, clean commit history.

Pros of Git Rebase:

• Clean history: Rebase creates a linear commit history, making it easier to follow.
• Easier to review: Code reviews are simpler when you’re dealing with one, linear commit rather than multiple merges.
• Helps avoid merge commits: Since rebase doesn’t create merge commits, your history stays neat and readable.

Cons of Git Rebase:

• Rewrites history: Rebase changes the commit history, so you need to be cautious when working with shared branches. It’s best to avoid rebasing public branches that other team members are working on.
• Can be tricky with conflicts: If you have lots of conflicts, rebase can be more challenging to manage than merge.

Why I Prefer Git Rebase

For me, Git Rebase is the better option, especially when working in larger projects with multiple contributors. Here’s why:

A Cleaner, More Manageable Git History

I prefer rebase because it keeps my Git history linear and clean. This is crucial when you have multiple developers working on different features at the same time. Instead of seeing a mess of merge commits, rebasing makes it easy to see exactly what was added, and in what order.

For example, I often work on feature branches for long periods—sometimes months. If I don’t rebase regularly, the branch can fall way behind the main branch. By rebasing, I can integrate the latest changes without creating a long chain of merge commits, making the final pull request much easier to review and understand.

Easier Code Reviews

When I open a pull request, I want to show my team exactly what I’ve done. If I use merge commits, the pull request ends up with a lot of unrelated commits—things like “Fix typo” or “Refactor code.” By rebasing and squashing, I ensure that the pull request contains only the relevant changes for the feature I’m working on.

Avoiding Large PR Reviews

I’ve found that large PR reviews can be time-consuming, but with a good rebase workflow, they don’t have to become unwieldy. Regularly rebasing keeps my branch in sync with main, so when I open a PR, it’s easier to merge. This reduces the chance of conflicts and avoids the need for a massive code review with conflicting changes.

I also prefer to squash all commits into a single commit before merging. GitHub PRs can take care of this for you if you select it or have your repository set up this way. This adds to the cleanliness and allows you to see individual commits for individual features, instead of long lists of every commit that went into a feature. I also use squashing whenever I just need to make simple updates for something I missed, like typos, but don’t necessarily want an entire commit to show up for such a small change. Rebasing can get tricky when there are a lot of conflicts, but it’s best to collaborate with the person who made the conflicting change to decide what needs to stay and what can go.

Key Differences Between Merge and Rebase

At a glance, both merge and rebase achieve the same goal: integrating changes from one branch into another. But how they get there—and what your Git history looks like afterward—is where things really differ.

Here’s how I usually think about it:

• Merge keeps every twist and turn of your development process, creating a new merge commit to connect branches.
• Rebase flattens that path and tells a story as if you built everything on top of the latest code from main all along.

Visualizing the Difference

If you merge:

*   Merge feature branch
|\
| * Add button styles
| * Add CTA section
* | Main commit
|/
* Earlier commit

If you rebase:

* Add button styles
* Add CTA section
* Main commit
* Earlier commit

Rebase results in a linear history—no merge commits, no “commit soup.” And when you’re reviewing a large PR, that makes a huge difference. You’re not sifting through dozens of commits or trying to follow the merge tree just to figure out what’s changed.

I also like how rebase works with squashing, which I do by default before merging a feature. Either via git rebase -i or through GitHub’s “Squash and merge” option, you end up with a single, meaningful commit per feature. That keeps main readable and helps you track when and where things were added.

That said, merge can be safer if you’re working with a team that isn’t comfortable with rewriting history, or if you want to keep a full audit trail of how code evolved.

Both are valid—just depends on the situation and your team’s preferences.

When to Use Git Merge

Even though I prefer rebasing in most scenarios, merge still has a place—especially when you need to preserve full history or keep things ultra-safe in a collaborative environment.

Here are a few situations where I think git merge makes more sense:

Your team is newer to Git

Merge is a lot harder to mess up. There’s no rewriting history, no risk of overwriting someone else’s work, and no surprise “force push” moments. If your team is just getting comfortable with Git, merge keeps things simple and understandable.

You want a full audit trail

Merge shows exactly how and when changes were integrated. This is helpful in some regulated or enterprise environments where auditability matters more than a clean history.

You’re merging very short-lived branches

If you’re merging in quick hotfixes or micro-features that only span a few commits, the extra noise from a merge commit is minimal. In this case, merging can be perfectly fine—especially if you’re trying to avoid rewriting shared history.

Resolving complex conflicts with help

When you’ve got tricky merge conflicts that you want to resolve with someone else’s help, merge lets both developers keep their existing commit context. That can be easier to reason through than a rebase with half-rewritten commits.

For teams that don’t enforce squashing or prefer a full commit-by-commit breakdown, merge might actually feel more natural.

When to Use Git Rebase

Rebase is where I live most of the time. Especially on larger projects, it’s my go-to tool for keeping things clean, linear, and understandable—for both myself and my teammates.

Here’s when I reach for git rebase:

You’re working on a feature branch for more than a few days

The longer a branch lives, the more out of sync it can get with main. Rebasing lets you stay current without cluttering up the history with a merge commit every time someone else pushes changes. I’ll often rebase my feature branch onto main once a day or so—just to keep it fresh.

One of the most useful applications of this has been during large-scale redesigns. I’ve worked on branches that spanned multiple months, redesigning entire sections of a marketing site—like an entire resource center—while other developers were still making changes to the main branch. Because I rebased regularly and kept my branch in sync, merging it back in later was shockingly smooth.

You prefer a clean Git history

If you like your Git history to be simple, squashed, and linear—rebase is the way to go. I do this for almost every feature I work on. It’s easier to track progress, see the bigger picture, and reduce review time.

You’re working solo or have strict Git rules

Rebase can feel a little scary in team environments with less experience, but it’s incredibly helpful when you control the repository or are working on a solo project. It’s all about your preference, but for me, a linear history makes life easier.

What’s Best to Use?

Both Git Merge and Git Rebase have their places in a developer’s toolbox. The key is to understand their differences and use each one strategically based on your project and team’s needs.

Personally, I lean toward rebase because it keeps my Git history clean, linear, and easy to follow. It’s especially helpful when working on long-lived feature branches or when collaborating with multiple contributors. I use rebase to integrate changes from main, squash commits for clarity, and streamline my PR process.

That said, Git Merge is far from obsolete. It’s a safer, simpler choice when your team is less familiar with Git or when you need to preserve a complete, audit-friendly history. It also comes in handy for managing short-lived branches or resolving complex conflicts with other developers.

The important thing is to find a workflow that works for you and your team. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but by understanding the pros and cons of both merge and rebase, you can make the right choice for your project.

Whether you’re squashing commits with a rebase or preserving full histories with a merge, Git gives you the flexibility to control your development process. In the end, the goal is to make your work easier, your team more productive, and your project more maintainable. So choose the right tool for the job and get coding!