Git Merge vs Git Rebase

It was brought up that git storing "diffs" is incorrect. Git stores a stream of snapshots and other VCSs store diffs between files. Git will not save anything for files that didn't change and only stores these snapshot references. Sorry for any confusion!

I'd argue that you should always rebase all your branches on master before merging, but then merge with --no-fast-forward to have the merge commits. This way you still have clean history but see the merged PRs/branches.

Whoa?! You had to do a rebase from bugfix....then move over to main to merge? Huh? The pic on the right looks like the code was updated...but then you had to change branches and do the merge....what looks like....again. I'm a bit confused sorry. Doesn't the rebase do that already? If it doesn't, couldn't you just do a merge from Main, and get the exact same results?

Thanks for clearing up the Git merge conflict text. Currently trying to get enrolled into app academy.

👍👌

Git obviously been named for Linus Torvalds as well....

Nice explanation. First minutes about git history are unnecessary - you are answering a specific question.

Uhhhhh, git keeps a full blob for every version of every file and they all get downloaded onto your machine when you clone a repo.

Great explanations! Just one tiny thing, C2 single quote, is known as C2 prime. The single quote is a notation called 'prime'! Hope this helps a bit :)

Really great explanation Andrew! That tool looks really useful, definitely going to play around with it.

Do you use Git Merge or Git Rebase more often?