Hey there! Have you ever been stuck, not sure whether to use git merge,
git rebase, or squash your commits? Trust me, you're not the only one! Today, we're going to tackle these sometimes
puzzling Git topics. We'll break down the key differences between these Git commands
and when to use each for our workflow. If you've ever worked on a Git
project with a bunch of branches, you've probably had to figure out how to
get changes from a feature branch back into the main branch, or keep your feature
branch up to date with the main branch. The big question is, should we use
git merge, git rebase, or squash our commits? Let's pull back the curtain and
see what's really going on with each one. Main content So, let's say we've created a
new feature branch from main. We've added commits A, B,
and C on the feature branch. At the same time, the main
branch has added commits D and E. Picture it like two branches of a
tree, growing in different directions. Keeping our feature branch up to
date with main is a crucial part of the Git workflow. We can do this
with either git merge or git rebase. Here's what that means: “git merge” pulls in the latest changes
from main into the feature branch, creating a new "merge commit" in the process. It's
like tying the two branches together with a knot. “git rebase” changes the base of our
feature branch to the latest commit on main and then replays our changes from there. It gives us a clean, straightforward
commit history, which many people prefer. Now, once we've finished developing the feature, we'll want to get the feature
branch back into the main branch. We have a few options for this: First is Git Merge. Git will
create a new "merge commit" that ties together the histories of both branches. It's like creating a knot in the rope
that shows where the branches joined. But if we do this a lot, we end up with lots of
knots, which can make the history a bit messy. Another option is “Git Rebase and Fast-Forward
Merge”. We can use git rebase to move our feature branch's changes onto the tip of main,
and then perform a fast-forward merge. This is like straightening out
the rope so it's all in one line. Squash Commits: With squashing, all the feature branch commits are squeezed
into a single commit when merged into main. This keeps main's history linear like rebasing,
while still creating a single merge commit. But remember, we lose the fine
details of individual feature commits in the main branch's commit history. That said, squashing commits is a
popular strategy on platforms like GitHub because it allows us to tidy up
history in the main branch while still preserving the detailed commit
history in the feature branch. It's a kind of a hybrid approach! Before we wrap up, I'd love to know -
have you used these strategies before? Which one do you prefer and why? Let's
have a discussion in the comments below! Summary: To sum it up, “git merge”
gives us a complete picture of the commit history and branch evolution. “Git rebase” tidies up history by
moving commits to the main branch tip. Squashing commits consolidates
commits into one, providing a clean, linear history in the main branch but
at the cost of detailed commit history. Now, imagine a scenario where
the team values a clean, straightforward history but doesn't mind
losing the detailed history of individual commits within the main branch. In this case,
squashing commits might be the way to go. But remember, it's all about
assessing the pros and cons and deciding which workflow makes the
most sense for the team. There's no one-size-fits-all approach - it all
comes down to what you value most. If you like our videos, you may like our system
design newsletter as well. It covers topics and trends in large-scale system design. Trusted by
450,000 readers. Subscribe at blog.bytebytego.com