• jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Merge keeps the original timeline. Your commits go in along with anything else that happened relative to the branch you based your work off (probably main). This generates a merge commit.

    Rebase will replay all the commits that happened while you were doing your work before your commits happen, and then put yours at the HEAD, so that they are the most recent commits. You have to mitigate any conflicts that impact the same files as these commits are replayed, if any conflicts arise. These are resolved the same way any merge conflict is. There is no frivolous merge commit in this scenario.

    TlDR; End result, everything that happened to the branch minus your work, happens. Then your stuff happens after. Much tidy and clean.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. To my untrained eyes, it feels like both merge and rebase have their use. I will try to keep that in mind.

      • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Never use rebase for any branch that has left your machine (been pushed) and which another entity may have a local copy of (especially if that entity may have committed edits to it).