Workflows
Choosing Squash Merge vs Rebase Merge
Compare how squash merge and rebase merge affect readability, traceability, and rollback options.
- Teams turning commands into repeatable routines
- Readers who need sequencing, branch, and sync discipline
- Basic understanding of fetch, pull, push, and branches
- A sense of how and why branches diverge
- Copying a workflow without checking branch state
- Choosing the wrong integration path on shared branches
Why this deserves a workflow decision
Feature branch (multiple commits)
main
ABC
feature
BDE
After merging to trunk
main
ABCM
feature
BDEM
Many teams are not blocked by "can we merge this?" They are blocked by "what shape should history have after merge?"
- squash merge keeps main shorter
- rebase merge keeps original commit granularity
So this is really a history-policy decision.
Suggested decision order
- decide whether original commit granularity matters
- decide whether rollback and debugging depend on merge structure
- standardize one default so the team is not mixing patterns randomly
When squash merge is often better
- the branch contains many intermediate commits
- the team wants one commit per reviewed change
- rollback usually happens per PR rather than per intermediate commit
When rebase merge is often better
- the branch commits are already clean
- the team wants to preserve more traceability
- later debugging or backporting benefits from commit-level detail