What is the primary distinction between git merge and git rebase?

What is the primary distinction between git merge and git rebase?

• A. Merge preserves history by creating a merge commit.
• B. Rebase preserves history by creating a merge commit.
• C. Merge combines histories and creates a merge commit; rebase rewrites commits onto a new base, producing a linear history but altering commit IDs.
• D. Rebase removes commits from the main branch.

Answer: (C)

The main distinction is how history is handled when integrating changes. Merging brings two lines of history together and creates a merge commit that has two parents, preserving every commit from both branches. Rebasing takes the commits from your feature branch and replays them on top of the current tip of the target branch, producing a linear history. Because the commits are replayed, they get new IDs, and the original feature commits aren’t preserved as-is. So, merging keeps the original history with a merge point, while rebasing rewrites history to a straight line, altering commit IDs.

The main distinction is how history is handled when integrating changes. Merging brings two lines of history together and creates a merge commit that has two parents, preserving every commit from both branches. Rebasing takes the commits from your feature branch and replays them on top of the current tip of the target branch, producing a linear history. Because the commits are replayed, they get new IDs, and the original feature commits aren’t preserved as-is. So, merging keeps the original history with a merge point, while rebasing rewrites history to a straight line, altering commit IDs.