<p><code>git merge</code> and <code>git rebase</code> are two different ways to integrate changes from one branch into another in Git. They have different approaches and implications:</p>
<h3>git merge</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p>A merge operation combines the changes from one branch into another branch and creates a new merge commit to record the integration of changes. This results in a linear history with a clear separation between branches.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Merging is generally used when you want to preserve the entire history of both branches and maintain a clear distinction between their development timelines.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>It is a safer option when working in a shared repository because it avoids rewriting commit history.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>git rebase</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p>A rebase operation moves the entire history of one branch to another branch, effectively replaying the commits from the source branch on top of the target branch. This results in a more linear and cleaner history but can lead to potential conflicts if multiple people are working on the same branch.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Rebasing is useful when you want to keep a clean and linear history by incorporating changes from another branch into your current branch. It makes it appear as if you developed your changes directly on top of the target branch.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>It can be disruptive if done on a shared branch because it rewrites commit history.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>TL;DR</h3>
<ul>
<li>Use <code>merge</code> when you want to maintain a clear history of branches, especially when working on shared repositories with others.</li>
<li>Use <code>rebase</code> when you want a cleaner and more linear commit history. It's useful for feature branches that you plan to merge back into a main branch.</li>
</ul>

Merge vs Rebase

This is a very basic question about git, if still unfamiliar, read this post.…