What is the difference between git rebase and git merge commands?

The difference between git rebase and git merge lies in how changes from one branch are integrated into another.

git merge combines changes, creating a new merge commit. The commit history remains linear only within each branch, but the merge point creates a "fork".

// Example usage:
git checkout main
git merge feature/new-feature

git rebase moves commits of the target branch on top of the commits of the base branch. This creates a linear commit history, as if work was done directly in the base branch. The original commits of the branch being rebased are rewritten with new parent commits.

// Example usage:
git checkout feature/new-feature
git rebase main

Comparison:

Feature	git merge	git rebase
History type	Non-linear (with merge commits)	Linear (rewrites commits)
Commit history	Fully preserved	Changed (commits are rewritten)
Merge commit	Created	Not created
History clarity	Can be more complex to track during frequent merges	Cleaner and more linear, but original merge context is lost
Usage	Recommended for public branches	Preferable for local, unpublished branches

Choosing between them depends on the task and team preferences. For public branches, git merge is usually preferred to preserve history. In local branches that haven't been published yet, git rebase helps maintain a clean linear history.