Git Rebase vs Merge: Which Is Better?
Git rebase vs. merge: there's a lot of debate in the Git community about these. Here, we break down what is Git merge, what is Git rebase, Git rebase vs. merge, and how they differ.
Follow along or jump to the section that interests you the most.
Table of Contents
- What Is Git Merge?
- Will Git Merge Overwrite My Changes?
- What Is Git Rebase?
- How Does Git Rebase Work?
- Git Rebase vs Merge: Similarities and Differences
- What Is the Difference Between Git Merge and Git Rebase?
- Is it Better to Rebase or Merge?
- Git Merge and Git Rebase Strategies
- Is Git Your Best Option?
- Get a Scalable Git Solution
What Is Git Merge?
Git merge is a command that allows you to merge branches from Git.
Merging is a common practice for developers. Whether branches are created for testing, bug fixes, or other reasons, merging commits changes to another branch. It takes the contents of a source branch and integrates it with a target branch.Back to top
Will Git Merge Overwrite My Changes?
When you use Git merge, only the target branch is changed. The source branch history remains. Advocates of it like it because it preserves the history of a branch.Back to top
What Is Git Rebase?
Back to top
Git rebase is a command that allows developers to integrate changes from one branch to another.
How Does Git Rebase Work?
Git rebase compresses all the changes into a single “patch.” Then it integrates the patch onto the target branch. Unlike merging, rebasing flattens history. It transfers the completed work from one branch to another. In the process, unwanted history is eliminated.
Advocates of Git rebase like it because it simplifies their review process.Back to top
Git Rebase vs Merge: Similarities and Differences
Back to top
Git rebase and merge both integrate changes from one branch into another. Where they differ is how it's done. Git rebase moves a feature branch into a master. Git merge adds a new commit, preserving the history.
What Is the Difference Between Git Merge and Git Rebase?
Some developers believe you should always rebase. And others think that you should always merge. Each side has benefits.
Here are the top three benefits for Git rebase and for Git merge.
- Streamlines a potentially complex history.
- Avoids merge commit “noise” in busy repos with busy branches.
- Cleans intermediate commits by making them a single commit, which can be helpful for DevOps teams.
- Simple and familiar.
- Preserves complete history and chronological order.
- Maintains the context of the branch.
Do You Need to Scale Git?
Watch this 20-minute demo to learn how to:
- Manage multiple repos and large files all in a single project.
- Improve fetch performance for global teams.
- Achieve 40–80 % faster builds.
So which one should your team use?
Git Rebase Makes Sense for Individuals
Jury Is Out for Teams
The answer to the Git rebase vs. merge workflow question is –– “it depends.” At Perforce, we believe neither the “always merge” nor “always rebase” extreme is necessary. There are use cases for both.
- Rebasing privately affects only the individual (prior to work being pushed).
- Rebasing publicly impacts other people in the branch.
- Team policies are essential and supersede individual preferences.
- Keeping your entire history may be essential to meet regulatory and compliance needs.
Is it Better to Rebase or Merge?
Back to top
If you're working alone or on a small team, use rebase. If you're working with a big team, use merge.
Git Merge and Git Rebase Strategies
Teams need to consider several questions when setting their Git rebase vs. merge policies. Because as it turns out, one workflow strategy is not better than the other. It is dependent on your team.
Consider the level of rebase and Git competence across your organization. Determine the degree to which you value the simplicity of rebasing as compared to the traceability and history of merging.
📘 Related Resource: Learn more about Git development
Decisions on merging and rebasing should be part of your branching strategy. A successful branching strategy is designed around your teams' needs. Developers should be organized in parallel teams, allowing them work at their own pace and not be impacted by others.
For example, you could have a development branch where each team is isolated. Work would be delivered only when it makes sense. This makes it possible to isolate units of work from the main branch. It is also keeps it isolated from QA, which is isolated from pre-production, and so on. In short, your branching strategy should reflect the shape, roles, and goals of your organization.Back to top
Is Git Your Best Option?
Git isn't the only option, and it might not be the best one for you. When it comes to branching and merging, there's other tools you should consider.
Check out how Git compares to other tools:
Git Also Lacks Security
Git security is lacking. Bad behavior is prevalent in Git — including using Git rebase and Git merge.
So, what can you do about it?
Learn how to lock down Git in our recent white paper. You'll learn:
- Why native Git lacks security.
- 5 best practices to secure Git.
- Which front-end Git tools add layers of security (including Git access control)
- How to truly lock down Git — and resolve Git security issues.
Get a Scalable Git Solution
Helix4Git provides faster performance at scale and a single source of truth.Back to top