Difference between git merge and git rebase, When should each be used?

[Amazeabhi]

I understand that both git merge and git rebase are used to integrate changes from one branch into another, but I am confused about when to use each approach in real projects.

1. How do merge and rebase differ in terms of commit history?
2. Which one is safer to use in team based repositories?
3. Are there best practices or real world scenarios where one is preferred over the other?

I would appreciate a clear explanation with practical use cases.

[MSubham06]

Git merge and git rebase are both used to combine changes from one branch into another, but they handle commit history differently. Merge keeps a non-linear history by creating a merge commit, showing the real timeline of events. Rebase rewrites commit history to make it look clean and linear, as if the changes were developed after the latest updates from the base branch. In team environments, merge is safer because it doesn’t rewrite history and avoids conflicts for teammates. Rebase is best used only on local feature branches before they are shared.

Point-wise Breakdown :

1 Commit History

Merge: Non-linear, keeps full history with merge commits.
Rebase: Linear, rewrites history to look clean.

2 Safety in Teams

Merge is safer for shared branches.
Rebase can break others’ work if used after pushing.

3 Best Practices

Use merge when collaborating in a shared repo.
Use rebase to clean up local feature commits before pushing.
Rule: Rebase privately → Merge publicly.