Understanding the Difference Between Git Rebase and Git Merge

If you're wondering about the distinction between git rebase and git merge, you're in the right place. Both are fundamental tools in managing Git repositories, but they serve different purposes.

Git Merge

Git merge combines the changes from one branch into another branch. This process creates a new commit that consolidates the histories of the merged branches. It's a non-destructive operation that preserves the commit history of both branches.

Git Rebase

On the other hand, git rebase rewrites the commit history by moving the starting point of one branch to another point. It essentially transplants the commits of one branch onto another branch, resulting in a linear commit history. This can provide a cleaner and more organized history but may cause conflicts due to the altered commit order.

In summary, the main difference between git rebase and git merge is the way they handle commit history integration. Git merge creates a merge commit, preserving branch history but potentially leading to a cluttered commit history. Git rebase, on the other hand, rewrites history for a cleaner log but may introduce conflicts. Depending on your project's needs, you can choose between these two options to manage your Git workflow effectively.

Hopefully, this explanation clarifies the distinction between git rebase and git merge, helping you make informed decisions in your version control workflow.