My Strategy of Merging: Merge Commit vs Squash vs Rebase

The Merge Dilemma

Early in my career, I used to merge everything with one command: git merge branch-name. It worked, but soon the commit history became messy. Hundreds of small commits flooded the log, and nobody could tell what belonged to which feature. That is when I discovered different merge strategies. Choosing the right one can make the difference between chaos and clarity.

1. Merge Commit (The Traditional Way)

This is the default method. Git creates a new commit every time you merge a branch. It keeps the complete history intact.

# Merge feature branch into main
git checkout main
git merge feature/login

Pros: Preserves history, shows exactly how code evolved.
Cons: History gets noisy, especially with small commits.

2. Squash and Merge

Squashing takes all the commits from a branch and turns them into a single commit before merging. This makes history cleaner and easier to follow.

# Squash commits before merging
git checkout main
git merge --squash feature/login
git commit -m "Add login feature"

Pros: Clean history, one commit per feature.
Cons: You lose detailed commit history inside the feature branch.

3. Rebase and Merge

Rebase replays commits from the feature branch onto the base branch, creating a linear history. It avoids merge commits entirely.

# Rebase feature branch before merging
git checkout feature/login
git rebase main
git checkout main
git merge feature/login

Pros: Linear, easy-to-read history.
Cons: Can cause conflicts, dangerous if misused in shared branches.

My Strategy of Merging

After years of trial and error, here is the strategy I follow:

• Use squash merges for features and bug fixes — one clean commit per feature keeps history readable.
• Use merge commits for big branches like release or hotfix — so we know exactly when they were integrated.
• Use rebase for keeping feature branches up to date before PRs — this avoids unnecessary conflicts later.

This balance gives the best of all worlds: clean history, traceability, and fewer conflicts.

Benefits of a Merge Strategy

• Clarity: Team members can understand project history easily.
• Stability: Avoids conflicts and broken builds.
• Professionalism: A structured history looks better in audits and reviews.

Pro Tips From Experience

• Never rebase shared branches like main or develop.
• Always write meaningful commit messages, especially after squash merges.
• Agree on a merge strategy with your team — inconsistency causes confusion.

Mistakes to Avoid

1. Mixing strategies randomly: Leads to messy history.
2. Squashing everything: Sometimes you do need detailed history for debugging.
3. Rebasing recklessly: Rebasing shared history breaks other developers’ work.

The Reality Check

Merging is not just about combining code, it is about telling the story of your project. A messy history makes debugging painful, while a clean one builds confidence. My strategy is simple: squash for features, merge commits for big branches, and rebase for updates. Find what works for your team, but always have a strategy. Git is flexible, but clarity is priceless.