𝗚𝗶𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝘃𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲
One of the most powerful Git features is branching. Yet, while working with it, we must integrate changes from one branch into another. The way how to do this can be different.
We have two ways to do it:
𝟭. 𝗠𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲
When you merge Branch A into Branch B (with 𝚐𝚒𝚝 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚐𝚎), Git creates a new merge commit. This commit has two parents, one from each branch, symbolizing the confluence of histories. It's a non-destructive operation, preserving the exact history of your project, warts, and all. Merges are particularly useful in collaborative environments where maintaining the integrity and chronological order of changes is essential. Yet, merge commits can clutter the history, making it harder to follow specific lines of development.
𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲
When you rebase Branch A onto Branch B (with 𝚐𝚒𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚋𝚊𝚜𝚎), you're essentially saying, "Let's pretend these changes from Branch A were made on top of the latest changes in Branch B." Rebase rewrites the project history by creating new commits for each commit in the original branch. This results in a much cleaner, straight-line history. Yet, it could be problematic if multiple people work on the same branch, as rebasing rewrites history, which can be challenging if others have pulled or pushed the original branch.
So, when to use them:
𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆, especially on shared branches or for collaborative work. It's ideal for feature branches to merge into a main or develop branch.
𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 or when you want a clean, linear history for easier tracking of changes. Remember to rebase locally and avoid pushing rebased branches to shared repositories. Also, be aware 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆. If your branch is shared with others, rebasing can rewrite history in a way that is disruptive and confusing to your collaborators.
