Git Rebase vs Merge: How Senior Developers Manage Code History

Git Rebase vs Merge: Clean History or True History?

One command preserves the chaos; the other rewrites it. Knowing when to use which is what separates Senior Devs from the rest.

The Problem: The "Merge Spaghetti"

Using git merge repeatedly on a long-lived feature branch creates a "spaghetti" history. You end up with a tangled web of merge commits that make it impossible to track when a specific feature was actually completed or where a bug was introduced.

The Golden Rule: Never rebase a public branch! Rebase rewrites history by moving the base of your branch to a new commit. If you do this on a shared branch, you’ll ruin the day for everyone else on your team.

The Solution: Linear Mastery

The solution is to use Rebase to keep your local feature branch up to date with the main project, and Merge when you are finally ready to integrate your finished work into the shared codebase.

Pro Tip: Rebase is for "polishing" your private work before it goes live. It makes your history look like a straight line, which is much easier for your team to read during a Code Review.

Command Breakdown

Choose your workflow based on your environment:

# The Merge Way (Preserves Context)
git checkout main
git merge feature-branch

# The Rebase Way (Linear History)
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main

MASTER THE GIT WORKFLOW