What Is Git Rebase? A Simple Guide for Developers

Ever found yourself drowning in a sea of confusing merge conflicts? Git rebase might be the lifeline you need. At its core, Git rebase is a powerful command that rewrites your commit history by moving or combining a sequence of commits to a new base commit. Unlike merging, which creates a special commit that ties two histories together, rebasing creates a cleaner, linear project history.

Version control is the backbone of modern software development, and Git stands as the industry standard. While most developers quickly learn basic Git commands like commit, push, and pull, many shy away from the more advanced features. This reluctance often stems from fear rather than complexity—fear of breaking something or losing work. But mastering tools like rebasing can transform your workflow from chaotic to elegant.

This comprehensive guide will demystify Git rebase for developers at all levels. Whether you’re a solo coder working on personal projects or part of a large team managing complex codebases, understanding rebase will help you maintain cleaner repositories and collaborate more effectively.

By the end of this article, you’ll understand:

• The core mechanics of how rebase works under the hood
• Practical scenarios where rebase outshines other Git commands
• How rebase differs from merge and when to choose each approach
• Best practices to avoid common rebase pitfalls
• Advanced techniques for complex situations
• Popular tools that make rebasing less intimidating

From cleaning up messy local branches to integrating upstream changes without unnecessary merge commits, Git rebase offers elegant solutions to common development challenges. Let’s dive in and master this essential tool in your Git arsenal.

What Is Git Rebase?

git rebase is a command that integrates changes from one branch onto another by moving or replaying commits. Unlike git merge, which creates a new merge commit, rebase applies each commit individually, resulting in a cleaner, linear history. It’s useful for keeping feature branches up to date without extra merge commits.

The Core Mechanics of Git Rebase

Understanding the Rebase Process

Git rebase is a powerful command that rewrites your commit history. Unlike Git merge, rebasing moves or combines a sequence of commits to a new base commit, creating a linear history. The process works by identifying the common ancestor of the two branches, collecting the changes introduced by commits in your current branch, and replaying these changes on top of the target branch.

When you run a Git rebase command, your commits are temporarily stored away. Git then grabs the latest commits from the branch you’re rebasing onto and applies your changes on top. This fundamentally changes how your Git repository looks compared to using merge operations.

During this process, commit hashes completely change because each commit contains:

• A reference to its parent commit
• Author information
• Timestamps
• The actual code changes

Your feature branch essentially gets a new foundation, similar to uprooting a tree and replanting it elsewhere in the commit tree. This requires careful handling in team collaboration Git environments.

Basic Rebase Command Structure

The standard Git rebase syntax is straightforward yet powerful:

git rebase <base>

This command takes your current branch and places it on top of the specified base. Most developers use this with upstream branches like:

git rebase origin master

Several important flags make rebasing Git branch operations more flexible:

• --continue: Proceeds with rebase after resolving conflicts
• --abort: Completely cancels the rebase operation
• --skip: Ignores the current commit and continues
• --interactive or -i: Starts interactive mode

The terminal output provides guidance during each step, especially when Git rebase conflict resolution becomes necessary.

Different Types of Rebases

Standard Branch Rebasing

The most common form simply takes a feature branch and rebases it onto another branch, creating a clean commit history:

git checkout feature
git rebase main

This approach is ideal for incorporating changes from the main development line into your Git feature branch before merging back.

Interactive Rebasing

Interactive rebase Git operations give you granular control. By running:

git rebase -i HEAD~3

You’ll see an editor with the last three commits listed. This powerful Git history modification tool lets you:

• Git squash commits together
• Delete unwanted commits
• Reorder your work
• Edit commit messages
• Split commits apart

This technique supports proper software engineering practices by maintaining atomic, logical changes.

Onto Rebasing

The --onto option handles complex branch relationships:

git rebase --onto main feature1 feature2

This specialized command takes commits from the range feature1..feature2 and places them onto main, which is valuable when working with multiple feature branches in distributed version control systems.

Pull with Rebase

Instead of generating merge commits when pulling changes, you can use:

git pull --rebase

This creates a cleaner history in your Git workflow rebase process and works well with continuous integration practices. Many teams configure this as default using:

git config --global pull.rebase true

Practical Rebase Scenarios

Cleaning Up Your Local Branch

Before sharing your work through a pull request, cleaning up your branch history improves code review quality.

Messy commit history happens to everyone. You might have commits with messages like “Fix typo” or “WIP” that don’t add value. Using interactive rebase, you can transform this chaos into logical chunks:

git rebase -i origin/main

You can squash multiple commits into one by changing “pick” to “squash” (or “s”) for commits you want to combine. The Git CLI will prompt you to create a new, clear message that summarizes all changes.

When you need to reorder commits for logical progression, simply change their order in the interactive rebase file. This helps tell a coherent story of how your feature developed.

Sometimes you’ll spot typos or vague descriptions in your commit history. Through rebasing, you can change “Fixed stuff” to something clear like “Fix validation in user registration form” – making the code integration strategy obvious to reviewers.

Integrating Upstream Changes

Projects evolve quickly. While working on a feature, the main branch often moves forward with other developers’ contributions. Keeping your feature branch up-to-date prevents painful merges later.

Run this sequence to incorporate upstream work:

git fetch
git rebase origin/main

This approach avoids creating unnecessary merge commits that clutter history. The result is a clean, linear history showing exactly what changed and why.

Some teams prefer this approach for Git branch management because it creates a straight line of commits rather than the “railway track” pattern seen in merge-heavy projects. When viewing the repository in tools like Sourcetree or GitKraken, this linear pattern makes following the project’s evolution easier.

Fixing Mistakes with Rebase

We all make mistakes. Maybe you committed something you shouldn’t have, or a large commit would make more sense as several smaller ones.

To remove accidental commits (like committed secrets or generated files), use interactive rebase:

git rebase -i HEAD~5

Then simply delete the line containing the problematic commit.

When you need to split large commits into smaller ones, mark the commit as “edit” during interactive rebase. When Git stops at that commit, reset it with:

git reset HEAD^

Now you can stage and commit changes in smaller, logical groups. Once done, continue with:

git rebase --continue

Forgot to include a change in your previous commit? No problem. Stage the additional files, then:

git commit --amend

Or during an interactive rebase, mark the commit as “edit” and amend it before continuing.

These techniques are particularly useful when working with team collaboration Git workflows that emphasize clean history. Just remember that rebasing changes commit IDs, so communication is key when working on shared branches in platforms like GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket.

The power of these Git rebase best practices becomes apparent when you need to maintain a high-quality codebase. When used properly, rebasing helps create a history that reflects logical development steps rather than the chaotic reality of day-to-day coding.

Git Rebase vs. Git Merge

Comparing the Approaches

The eternal debate in Git workflow circles: should you merge or rebase? Both commands integrate changes from one branch into another, but they work in fundamentally different ways.

Git merge preserves history exactly as it happened. When you merge a feature branch into main, Git creates a special merge commit that has two parents. This preserves the fact that there was a separate line of development. The history shows precisely when branches diverged and converged.

Git rebase, however, rewrites history to create a linear sequence. It takes your branch’s commits, temporarily sets them aside, updates your branch with the latest from the target branch, then replays your work on top. The result? A straight line of commits without merge bubbles.

Here’s a quick comparison:

Linear history (rebase):

• Creates cleaner, easier-to-follow history
• Makes git bisect and blame more useful
• Creates new commit hashes (same code, different IDs)
• Obscures when work was actually done

Branch preservation (merge):

• Shows exact history of development
• Maintains original commit timestamps
• Preserves context of parallel development
• Creates “merge bubbles” in visualizations

Some scenarios clearly favor merge over rebase. When working on a pull request that others have reviewed or commented on, rebasing can create confusion by changing commit references. Similarly, public branches that others depend on should generally avoid rebasing to prevent Git history manipulation headaches.

The impact on commit history visualization is dramatic. Projects that primarily use merge show a network of interconnected branches, while rebase-focused projects display a more sequential, linear progression. Tools like GitLab and Sourcetree render these differences clearly, influencing how developers understand project evolution.

Workflow Considerations

Team size drastically affects which approach works best. Small teams with good communication might prefer the cleanliness of rebase. One developer might scream “rebase ALL the things!” while working solo. Makes sense.

For large teams? Different story. Twenty developers rebasing shared branches becomes chaos. Fast. The Golden Rule of Git Rebase exists for a reason: never rebase commits that exist outside your repository.

Many teams adopt these policies:

1. Personal branches: Rebase freely before pushing
2. Feature branches: Rebase to stay current with main
3. Main/shared branches: Merge only, never rebase

Repository maintenance benefits from thoughtful integration choices. Projects using primarily merge may need occasional Git cleanup commits to simplify history, while rebase-heavy workflows naturally maintain cleaner logs. DevOps practices often include automated testing that can help catch issues regardless of integration method.

Making the Right Choice

Project complexity matters. A small website might benefit from the simplicity of linear history through rebasing. But a complex application with many concurrent features might need the explicit branch structure that merging preserves.

Team collaboration patterns also influence this decision. Teams practicing continuous integration often prefer smaller, frequent merges to massive rebases. When working in environments like Microsoft Azure DevOps or AWS CodeCommit, the entire team needs consistent approaches.

The ideal balance depends on your specific context:

• Prioritize history accuracy? Lean toward merge.
• Value readability over exact chronology? Favor rebase.
• Working on sensitive code? Merge provides better traceability.
• Preparing for release? Rebase can clean up messy development details.

Remember: Git offers flexibility. You’re not locked into one approach. Many teams use rebase for day-to-day development while preserving key structural points with merge commits.

Git Rebase Best Practices

Safety Measures When Rebasing

Rebasing can be dangerous. One wrong move can lose work or create horrific conflicts. Always create backup branches before significant rebases:

git branch backup/feature-x-pre-rebase

Now you have a safety net. If things go sideways, you can always return to this point.

Never, ever rebase branches that:

• Have been pushed and shared with others
• Represent release points or version tags
• Contain merge commits (generally problematic)

When conflicts arise, resolve them properly. Don’t rush. Each conflict marks a potential regression point. Tools within Visual Studio Code and other Git client software can make this process more visual and less error-prone.

Rebase Workflow Patterns

The feature branch workflow shines with rebasing. Start with a clean branch from main:

git checkout -b feature-x
# Do work, commit often

Before finalizing:

git fetch
git rebase origin/main
git push --force-with-lease

This approach keeps your feature current without merge commits. The --force-with-lease flag is safer than regular force push, aborting if someone else has updated the remote branch.

Code reviews benefit tremendously from rebased branches. Reviewers see only relevant changes, not main branch noise or messy history. This focuses attention on actual code changes rather than merge resolution decisions.

For continuous integration environments, consider testing both before and after rebasing. A passing test suite before rebase that fails afterward immediately signals problems in the integration, not the original code.

Communication Guidelines

Clear team communication prevents rebase disasters. Always inform teammates when rebasing shared branches (though ideally, don’t rebase shared branches at all). A quick message saves hours of confusion:

“Rebasing feature-x onto latest main to include security fixes.”

Documenting rebase decisions helps future contributors. A simple note in your pull request or commit message explains why history looks the way it does:

“Rebased to incorporate DB schema changes from PR #123”

Help others understand your rebase choices by explaining your thinking. When a colleague asks why you chose rebase over merge, take time to walk through your reasoning. This knowledge sharing improves everyone’s Git command line skills.

Some teams maintain a Git documentation guide with specific rebase policies. This might include:

• When rebasing is appropriate/prohibited
• Required communication steps
• Branch naming conventions that signal rebase intent
• Special handling for long-running features

The best teams view Git not just as a tool but as a communication medium. Every commit, merge, and rebase tells a story about how the software evolved. When used thoughtfully, rebasing helps make that story clearer and more useful for everyone working with the codebase.

Remember that tools like Git Bash, Terminal on MacOS, or PowerShell on Windows all support rebase, but their interface differences can lead to confusion. Team standards should account for these platform variations.

Finally, secure your work with proper SSH keys and Git credentials management. Rebasing often requires authentication, especially with force pushes. Using credential helpers or SSH agent keeps your workflow smooth without compromising security.

Common Rebase Problems and Solutions

Handling Rebase Conflicts

Conflicts during Git rebase happen when changes in different branches touch the same code. Nothing strikes fear into a developer like seeing:

CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/main.js
Auto-merging src/main.js
FAILED

Understanding why conflicts happen is crucial. Conflicts occur when:

• Two branches modify the same line
• One branch deletes a file another modifies
• Changes are too complex for Git to resolve automatically

When conflicts arise, Git pauses the rebase. Don’t panic! Your Git repository is safe. Git leaves conflict markers in your files:

<<<<<<< HEAD
const config = { timeout: 5000 }; // From the branch you're rebasing onto
=======
const config = { timeout: 3000 }; // From your branch
>>>>>>> Your commit message

Resolving conflicts follows these steps:

1. Edit files to remove conflict markers
2. Choose which changes to keep
3. Run git add on resolved files
4. Continue with git rebase --continue

Several tools make conflict resolution easier. VS Code Git extensions provide visual merge helpers. Tools like GitKraken show conflicts side-by-side with intuitive resolution buttons. Even the command line interface has improved with the --merge tool:

git mergetool --tool=vimdiff

Recovering from Rebase Mistakes

Mistakes happen. Maybe you lost a commit or mangled important code. The Git reflog is your safety net:

git reflog

This shows all recent HEAD movements with unique hashes. Find the state before rebasing:

5a78c4e HEAD@{4}: checkout: moving from main to feature

Then reset to that point:

git reset --hard 5a78c4e

If you’re in the middle of a disaster, abort:

git rebase --abort

This returns to your pre-rebase state. It’s like nothing ever happened.

For total reset to the state before you started:

git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD

Git thoughtfully saves your pre-rebase position in ORIG_HEAD for exactly this situation.

Troubleshooting Specific Errors

“Cannot rebase: You have unstaged changes”

Git won’t let you rebase with a dirty working directory. You’ll see:

error: Cannot rebase: You have unstaged changes.
error: Please commit or stash them.

Fix this by either:

1. Committing changes: git commit -am "WIP"
2. Stashing changes: git stash
3. Discarding changes: git restore . (careful!)

“Could not apply commit X”

This indicates a conflict Git couldn’t resolve automatically. The message usually includes details:

Could not apply f7f3f6d... Add user validation

Resolve the conflict and use git rebase --continue.

Dealing with Large Rebases

Rebasing dozens of commits onto a significantly changed base can take forever. Break it into smaller chunks:

git rebase -i HEAD~5  # First rebase 5 commits
# Later
git rebase -i HEAD~5  # Next batch

Or use the --onto option to rebase specific commit ranges. This approach is particularly useful in source code management for large projects.

Advanced Rebase Techniques

Interactive Rebase in Depth

The real power of git rebase -i goes beyond basic options. The full range includes:

• pick: Use the commit as is
• reword: Change the commit message
• edit: Stop for amending
• squash: Combine with previous commit
• fixup: Like squash, but discard the message
• exec: Run a command after each commit
• break: Stop for a break
• drop: Remove the commit entirely

Creating custom commit groups during interactive rebase helps organize complex features. For example, you might take 15 mixed commits and reorganize them into logical groups:

pick 2c6a45d Add database models
squash 9cb3d4a Fix model validation
squash f7d2c1e Add unit tests for models

pick 3a5e7b9 Create API endpoints
squash 8d4f6e1 Add authentication to endpoints

pick 5b9c3d1 Implement frontend components

This creates three clear commits instead of a messy timeline.

For automation, consider Git rebase scripts:

#!/bin/bash
# Auto-squash all commits with "fix" in the message
git rebase -i HEAD~10 --exec "if echo \"`git show -s --format=%B`\" | grep -q 'fix'; then git commit --amend -m \"`git show -s --format=%B`\"; git rebase --continue; fi"

This automatically identifies and combines fix commits during rebasing.

Rebase with Hooks

Git hooks add powerful automation and safety to rebasing. The pre-rebase hook prevents potentially problematic rebases:

#!/bin/bash
# pre-rebase hook
CURRENT_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
if [[ "$CURRENT_BRANCH" == "main" || "$CURRENT_BRANCH" == "develop" ]]; then
  echo "ERROR: Rebasing $CURRENT_BRANCH is not allowed!"
  exit 1
fi

This prevents accidental rebasing of protected branches, helping with Git branch management.

Post-rebase hooks automate common follow-up tasks:

#!/bin/bash
# post-rebase hook
echo "Running tests after rebase..."
npm test
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "Tests passed! Pushing to remote..."
  git push origin HEAD --force-with-lease
else
  echo "Tests failed! Please fix before pushing."
fi

This ensures tests pass before pushing rebased changes, integrating with your continuous integration workflow.

Custom hooks can enforce team workflow patterns:

#!/bin/bash
# pre-rebase hook for team workflow
TARGET_BRANCH=$1
SOURCE_BRANCH=$2

if [[ "$TARGET_BRANCH" == "main" && ! $(git log -1 --pretty=%B $SOURCE_BRANCH) =~ "REVIEWED:" ]]; then
  echo "ERROR: Commits must be reviewed before rebasing onto main!"
  echo "Add 'REVIEWED: <reviewer>' to your commit message."
  exit 1
fi

This enforces code review attestation before rebasing onto main.

Rebase in Continuous Integration

Integrating rebase into CI/CD pipelines helps catch issues early. Consider this GitHub Actions workflow:

name: Auto-Rebase
on:
  push:
    branches: [ main ]
jobs:
  auto-rebase:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v2
        with:
          fetch-depth: 0
      - name: Rebase feature branches
        run: |
          git config user.name "CI Bot"
          git config user.email "ci@example.com"
          for branch in $(git branch -r | grep 'origin/feature/' | sed 's/origin\///'); do
            git checkout $branch
            git rebase main || git rebase --abort
            if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
              git push --force-with-lease
            fi
          done

This automatically rebases feature branches when main changes, notifying of conflicts.

Automated testing during rebase can verify each commit still works:

git rebase -i master --exec "npm test"

This runs tests after applying each commit, immediately showing which change broke the build.

To protect the main branch integrity, many teams use a validation pipeline:

1. Developer rebases feature onto main
2. CI system checks out the branch
3. Tests run on the rebased code
4. If successful, automatic merge to main

This ensures only cleanly rebased code reaches your main branch, maintaining the stability needed for DevOps practices.

The combination of rebasing with proper testing creates a robust software development process that maintains both code quality and history cleanliness. Whether using tools like JetBrains IDE with its rebase support or custom Bash scripts, the goal remains the same: a clear, logical history that accurately represents your project’s evolution while being easy to understand and navigate.

Git Rebase Tools and Extensions

GUI Tools for Rebasing

Command line interface purists might scoff, but GUI tools make rebasing significantly more approachable. GitKraken transforms the intimidating git rebase -i command into a visual drag-and-drop experience. No more memorizing arcane commands. Just rearrange, squash, or drop commits visually.

Sourcetree’s rebase features shine with conflict resolution. The three-way merge view shows:

• Your changes (LEFT)
• Their changes (RIGHT)
• The common ancestor (BASE)

This visual clarity prevents errors when resolving complex conflicts. One click accepts the correct version or lets you manually edit for custom resolutions.

VS Code Git extensions integrate rebasing into your coding environment. Extensions like GitLens transform interactive rebasing:

pick 3a5e7b9 Add user authentication
squash 8d4f6e1 Fix login redirect

Into clickable buttons that perform the actions directly in your editor. The integration with your software development process feels seamless—no context switching required.

Command Line Helpers

Power users enhance the Git command line with Git aliases for common operations:

git config --global alias.rb 'rebase'
git config --global alias.rbi 'rebase -i'
git config --global alias.rbc 'rebase --continue'
git config --global alias.rba 'rebase --abort'

These shortcuts turn multi-word commands into quick, memorable alternatives. Your fingers will thank you.

Terminal tools like diff-so-fancy dramatically improve rebase conflict readability in the console:

git config --global core.pager "diff-so-fancy | less --tabs=4 -RFX"

Team-specific rebase operations benefit from custom scripts:

#!/bin/bash
# Smart-rebase: automatically detect what to rebase onto
smart-rebase() {
  local current_branch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
  local tracking_branch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref --symbolic-full-name @{u} 2>/dev/null)

  if [[ $current_branch == "feature/"* ]]; then
    echo "Rebasing feature branch onto develop..."
    git rebase develop
  elif [[ -n $tracking_branch ]]; then
    echo "Rebasing onto tracking branch $tracking_branch..."
    git rebase $tracking_branch
  else
    echo "Rebasing onto main..."
    git rebase main
  fi
}

This script intelligently determines the appropriate base for rebasing, following your team’s branching strategy. Scripts like these codify your workflow patterns, ensuring consistency across the team.

IDE Integrations

JetBrains IDE rebase support in tools like IntelliJ, WebStorm, and PyCharm provides a uniquely integrated experience. The VCS operations panel offers:

• Interactive rebase with drag-and-drop interface
• Visual conflict resolution with side-by-side diffs
• One-click squash, edit, reword operations
• Integrated terminal for custom rebase commands

This environment combines the power of command-line Git with visual assistance, making it popular for team collaboration Git workflows.

Eclipse and Git rebase functions through the EGit plugin, providing similar functionality but with Eclipse’s distinctive UI approach. The History view lets you select commits visually before rebasing operations.

Other development environments like Atom (with git-plus), Sublime Text (with GitSavvy), and even Vim (with fugitive.vim) offer varying levels of rebase integration. The goal across all these tools remains the same: make the powerful but complex rebase operation more accessible and less error-prone.

Real-world Examples

Open Source Project Case Studies

The Linux kernel represents perhaps the most famous Git rebase example. Linus Torvalds, the creator of both Linux and Git, established specific patterns:

1. Subsystem maintainers rebase their trees before submission
2. Topic branches stay rebased on current main
3. Clean, logical commits valued over preserving merge history

This approach has successfully managed one of the largest collaborative software projects in history. When examining kernel commit logs, you’ll notice logical progression rather than chaotic development reality.

Many web framework projects adopt different approaches based on their size and contributor patterns. React‘s project history shows a mix of strategies:

• Internal feature branches: Heavily rebased for clean history
• Community contributions: Usually merged to preserve attribution
• Release branches: Strictly linear history through rebasing

One interesting lesson from studying high-traffic repositories involves reverting complex merges. When a problematic feature needs removal, repositories with rebased, linear histories allow simple git revert operations. Repositories with complex merge networks often require multiple reverts or new “fix” commits, cluttering history further.

Team Workflow Examples

Small teams often benefit from a rebase-focused strategy. Consider this real workflow from a five-person startup:

1. Developers create feature branches from main
2. Daily rebasing keeps features current with team progress
3. Pre-PR cleanup via interactive rebase
4. Code review on clean, logical history
5. Merge with --ff-only for linear project history

This small team approach eliminates merge bubbles entirely. The Git repository history reads like a book, with each chapter building naturally on previous work.

Enterprise-scale rebase approaches differ significantly. Large companies with hundreds of developers might use:

1. Feature branches rebased onto team branches
2. Team branches merged (not rebased) to department branches
3. Department branches merged to main with explicit merge commits
4. Release branches cherry-picked from main

This hybrid approach uses rebase at smaller scales while preserving merge history for major integration points. Tools like Bitbucket and GitHub facilitate this with branch permissions and merge request policies.

Solo developers often adopt the strictest rebase habits. With no team coordination needed, a single developer might:

1. Create topic branches for each feature/bug
2. Commit frequently with minimal messages
3. Perform aggressive interactive rebasing before pushing
4. Maintain a perfectly linear, clean history

This approach works because there’s no risk of disrupting others’ work with Git history manipulation or force push operations.

Before and After Comparisons

Repository history visualization improves dramatically through thoughtful rebasing. Compare these git log outputs:

Before rebasing:

* 72e4d8f (HEAD -> feature) Fix typo in login form
* 3ab7c2e Add missing validation
* 9d4e1f0 WIP user authentication
* 5cb8a3e Begin user auth feature
* 2f7b6d9 (origin/main) Add product listing page

After rebasing:

* 8f7e6d5 (HEAD -> feature) Implement user authentication
* 2f7b6d9 (origin/main) Add product listing page

The result speaks for itself. Four messy, incremental commits become one clear, atomic change. Reviewing this history months later, developers immediately understand what changed without wading through intermediate steps.

Commit clarity and atomic changes significantly impact maintenance. Consider debugging a regression in authentication six months later. In the rebased history, you examine one well-described commit. In the unrebased history, you must piece together understanding from four scattered commits, trying to deduce the developer’s overall intent.

Long-term maintenance benefits of rebased history include:

• Easier git bisect operations to find bugs
• More useful blame information (showing why, not just when)
• Smoother cherry-picking of features to release branches
• More informative project history for new team members

Many teams report spending less time understanding historical changes after adopting consistent rebasing practices. One study found developers spent 25% less time understanding code evolution in projects with clean, rebased histories compared to those with unstructured merge-heavy approaches.

Whether using Bash, PowerShell, or specialized tools, the investment in learning proper Git rebase techniques pays dividends throughout a project’s lifecycle. From initial development through long-term maintenance, thoughtful history manipulation creates a more useful record of your project’s evolution.

FAQ on What Is Git Rebase

What exactly is Git rebase and how does it differ from merge?

Git rebase is a command that lets you move or combine a sequence of commits to a new base commit, essentially rewriting your commit history. Unlike Git merge, which creates a special merge commit that combines the histories of two branches, rebase transplants your branch’s changes onto another branch’s tip. This creates a linear history without the “branching and merging” visual pattern you’d see in commit graphs. When using Git workflow rebase, your branch appears as if it was created from the latest point of the target branch, not from where it actually diverged. This makes the commit history visualization cleaner but comes with important tradeoffs regarding history preservation.

When should I use rebase instead of merge?

Use rebase when you want a cleaner, linear project history. It’s ideal for:

• Updating your feature branch with the latest changes from the main branch
• Cleaning up your local branch before sharing it
• Maintaining a straight-line history for better readability
• Avoiding unnecessary merge commits that add noise to the repository

Merge is better when:

• You’re working on public branches that others might base work on
• You want to preserve the exact history of branch development
• You need to document when and how features were integrated

The decision often depends on your team’s Git branching strategy and source code management philosophy.

Is it dangerous to use Git rebase?

Yes, it can be. Rebasing rewrites commit history, which creates new commit hashes even when the content is identical. This can cause serious problems when working with shared branches. The fundamental rule of Git rebase best practices is: never rebase commits that exist outside your repository (ones you’ve pushed). Violating this principle can force teammates to reconcile conflicts repeatedly or lead to duplicated work. However, on local branches or in solo DevOps practices, rebase is generally safe as long as you understand what you’re doing. Tools like Git reflog provide safety nets to recover from mistakes.

How do I perform a basic Git rebase?

The basic Git rebase syntax is straightforward:

git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main-branch

This takes all commits from your feature branch and replays them on top of the main branch. First, Git temporarily stores your changes, then applies the target branch’s changes, and finally replays your commits one by one. If conflicts occur, Git pauses and allows you to resolve them before continuing with:

git rebase --continue

If things go wrong, you can always abort with:

git rebase --abort

This simplicity masks the powerful Git history modification happening under the hood.

What is interactive rebasing and when should I use it?

Interactive rebase Git operations give you granular control over your commit history. Start it with:

git rebase -i HEAD~3

This opens an editor with the last three commits listed, where you can:

• Reorder commits by changing their order in the list
• Remove commits by deleting lines
• Squash commits together with the squash or fixup commands
• Edit commits with the edit command
• Reword commit messages with the reword command

Use interactive rebasing when preparing your branch for public sharing, to create a clean, logical history that tells a coherent story about your feature. This is especially valuable before submitting a pull request in platforms like GitHub or GitLab, as it makes code review significantly easier.

How do I fix conflicts during a rebase?

Conflict resolution during rebasing follows this process:

1. Git pauses the rebase when it encounters a conflict
2. Edit the conflicted files to resolve differences (Git marks them with <<<<<<<, =======, and >>>>>>>)
3. Add the resolved files with git add <filename>
4. Continue the rebase with git rebase --continue

For complex conflicts, consider using Git client tools like Sourcetree or VS Code Git extensions which provide visual interfaces for conflict resolution. Many developers find visual three-way diff tools especially helpful for understanding complex conflicts. If you get stuck or confused, you can always abort the rebase with git rebase --abort and try a different approach or seek help.

How can I undo a rebase if something goes wrong?

If you haven’t pushed the rebased branch, the easiest recovery method uses Git reflog:

git reflog

This shows a history of all ref updates in your local repository. Find the commit hash from before you started rebasing:

5a78c4e HEAD@{5}: checkout: moving from main to feature-branch

Then reset your branch to that state:

git reset --hard 5a78c4e

If you’ve pushed after rebasing and others have based work on it, recovery becomes much more complicated. This highlights why Git rebase best practices emphasize only rebasing local, unpushed work. Prevention is far easier than cure in this situation.

What is “git pull –rebase” and why would I use it?

The command git pull --rebase fetches remote changes and then rebases your local changes on top of them instead of creating a merge commit. This keeps your history clean when regularly pulling from a shared branch. Many developers set this as the default behavior:

git config --global pull.rebase true

This approach is particularly useful for active team collaboration Git environments where multiple developers frequently push to the same branches. It creates a cleaner history without the so-called “merge bubbles” that can make history harder to follow. However, it still carries the usual rebase risks, so be cautious when you have unpushed local work that might conflict.

What does “git rebase onto” do and when should I use it?

The --onto option provides precise control over complex rebasing scenarios:

git rebase --onto <new-base> <old-base> <branch>

This command takes all commits between <old-base> and <branch> and replays them onto <new-base>. It’s particularly useful for:

• Moving a specific range of commits to a different branch
• “Transplanting” a feature built on one branch onto another
• Reorganizing complex branch structures

For example, if you built a feature on the wrong branch:

git rebase --onto main wrong-branch feature-branch

This moves your feature work from wrong-branch to main. While powerful, this advanced Git rebase command requires a solid understanding of Git commit tree structures.

How do teams typically handle rebasing in their Git workflows?

Teams vary widely in their rebase approaches based on size, project complexity, and collaboration needs:

• Solo developers often rebase liberally, maintaining pristine linear histories
• Small teams might use a “rebase local, merge remote” pattern where developers rebase their feature branches regularly but use merges for final integration
• Large teams often establish strict policies about when rebasing is allowed to prevent disruption

Common workflow patterns include:

1. Feature branch workflow with rebasing: keep feature branches updated via rebasing
2. Gitflow with targeted rebasing: rebase feature branches but merge to develop/main
3. Trunk-based development: frequent small merges with occasional rebasing

Some teams use CI/CD pipelines to automate testing after rebases, ensuring integrated code remains stable. Whatever the approach, clear communication about rebase practices is essential for successful team collaboration Git workflows.

Conclusion

Understanding what is Git rebase transforms how developers manage code history. This powerful command creates clean, logical commit sequences that make your codebase history easier to follow and maintain. By transplanting commits onto a new base, you gain control over your project’s narrative in ways that simple merging can’t match.

The Git command line offers incredible flexibility, but requires careful application of rebase techniques. Whether you’re using interactive rebase to clean up work before sharing or standard rebasing to incorporate upstream changes, the result is the same: a more readable commit tree that accurately represents logical development steps. From Linux kernel maintenance to small personal projects, proper rebasing makes source code management more effective.

Remember that while tools like GitLab, Sourcetree, and various terminal applications make rebasing more accessible, the fundamentals remain constant. Master these principles, apply them thoughtfully within your team collaboration context, and you’ll create repositories that remain maintainable for years to come.

If you liked this article about what is Git rebase, you should check out this article about what does Git mean.

There are also similar articles discussing what does Git fetch do, what does Git pull do, what does Git stash do, and what is Git bash.

And let’s not forget about articles on how to use Git, how to clone a Git repository, how to delete a branch in Git, and how to revert a commit in Git.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Bogdan Sandu

Bogdan is a seasoned web designer and tech strategist, with a keen eye on emerging industry trends.

With over a decade in the tech field, Bogdan blends technical expertise with insights on business innovation in technology.

A regular contributor to TMS Outsource's blog, where you'll find sharp analyses on software development, tech business strategies, and global tech dynamics.

Latest posts by Bogdan Sandu (see all)

• Kotlin Regex: A Guide to Regular Expressions - April 22, 2025
• What Is the Kotlin Enum Class? Explained Clearly - April 22, 2025
• How To Work With Maps In Kotlin - April 21, 2025