I'm trying to understand how often people use `git rebase` in their workflows. I've heard both sides of the argument; some say it's great for maintaining a clean commit history, while others argue that it can lead to more merge conflicts, especially if you have a feature branch that's been around for a while. What are your thoughts on when to use `git rebase` versus just doing a `git merge`?
6 Answers
I use `git rebase` all the time! Before merging any feature branch to main, I rebase it first to ensure a tidy commit history. It’s definitely not about avoiding merge conflicts; those can happen either way. The reason I like rebasing is that it forces you to tackle conflicts as they come up, rather than letting them pile up on a long-lived branch. Plus, it keep things neat and linear which is pleasant for reviewing later!
I don’t really use `git rebase`. Merging has worked just fine for me. I know some folks love it because it can keep things organized, but I prefer the straightforward approach. It feels less risky. Plus, I find rebasing a bit complicated and sometimes it just messes up my code, so I stick to merges.
That’s totally valid! Everyone has their own workflow. If merging works for you, then that’s what matters!
Whenever I work on my own branch, I rebase to keep it neat. But if I'm collaborating with someone on the same feature branch, I usually merge instead to avoid complications. It really depends on the situation and who I'm working with.
I rebase to clean up my commit history before creating a pull request. People should understand that avoiding merge conflicts isn't the primary reason for choosing rebase over merge. I like being able to squash my commits when I finish a task so they represent the work clearly. Sure, there are times I need to rebase, but I might also just do a merge if it’s easier to manage those situations, especially if I’m collaborating with others.
That's a good point! Squashing makes sense when you've made multiple incremental changes that don’t need to pollute the history.
I agree, and sometimes it’s just easier to manage merges when you’re working in a team.
I use rebase for tidying up my commits before a PR, mainly because I prefer a clear commit history that reflects meaningful changes. I argue that rebase allows you to organize things better than merge commits. That said, both methods have their place, and I use each according to the scenario!
I rebase regularly to keep my feature branches up-to-date with main. It helps to squash commits before I open a PR; that way, I present a cleaner change. But I do find maintaining linear history has its merits. It's not that I don't ever encounter merge conflicts - I do - but dealing with them proactively during the rebase makes them easier than trying to resolve a big mess later on.
Yup! It saves time in the long run when you tackle conflicts piece by piece.
I totally see your point! Short-lived branches really help too; it makes conflicts less daunting.