# Git Merge vs Rebase

URL: https://softwaredictionary.org/compare/merge-vs-rebase
Last updated: 2026-09-30

In short: Git merge joins two branches with a merge commit that keeps the full history, while git rebase replays your commits onto another branch for a linear history.

## What is the difference between git merge and git rebase?

`git merge` and `git rebase` both bring changes from one branch into another. Merge ties the two histories together with a new merge commit that has two parents. Rebase takes the commits that exist only on your branch, replays them one by one on top of the target branch and creates new copies of them with new commit IDs.

The difference is what happens to history. Merge is non-destructive: existing commits never change, so you can always see when a branch split off and came back, but the log can fill up with merge commits. Rebase gives a straight, linear history that is easier to read and search, but it rewrites commits, which causes trouble for anyone who already has the old ones.

Many teams use both: developers rebase their own feature branch onto the latest `main` to stay current and tidy, then merge it through a pull request. The golden rule is to never rebase commits that other people have already pulled, such as those on a shared `main` branch.

A common misconception is that rebasing avoids merge conflicts. Conflicts happen either way when the same lines changed; with rebase, you may even resolve them once for each replayed commit instead of once for the whole merge.

| Aspect | Merge | Rebase |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What it does | Joins two branches with a new merge commit | Replays your commits on top of another branch |
| History shape | Branching history showing where work split and joined | One straight, linear history |
| Existing commits | Left unchanged | Rewritten with new commit IDs |
| Conflicts | Resolved once, in the merge commit | May be resolved once per replayed commit |
| Safe on shared branches | Yes, it never rewrites history | No, others keep outdated copies of the commits |
| Pushing afterward | A normal `git push` works | Needs `git push --force-with-lease` if already pushed |
| Best for | Integrating finished work into shared branches | Updating a private feature branch and tidying commits |

## Choose Merge when

- The branch is shared with other developers.
- You want a true record of when work split off and was merged.
- You prefer to resolve all conflicts in one step.

## Choose Rebase when

- You are updating your own feature branch with the latest `main`.
- You want a clean, linear history that is easy to read.
- You want to tidy up commits before opening a pull request.

## Frequently asked questions

**Is rebase better than merge?**

Neither is better overall. Rebase keeps history linear and tidy for private branches, while merge is safer for shared branches because it never rewrites commits.

**When should you not use git rebase?**

Don't rebase commits that other people have already pulled, such as those on `main` or another shared branch. Rewriting them forces everyone else to repair their local copies.

**What is the difference between rebase and a squash merge?**

A squash merge combines all of a branch's commits into one new commit on the target branch, while a rebase keeps each commit separate but moves them onto a new base.

---

Software Dictionary: https://softwaredictionary.org/ · https://softwaredictionary.org/llms.txt