Merge Strategies

There are three merge strategies in version control. Each strategy has its own set of trade-offs, and the choice often depends on the project's version control workflow, collaboration practices, and the desired structure of the commit history.

• Explicit, non fast-forward merge:
  • Description: In this approach, when you merge a branch into another, a new commit is created explicitly, even if the branch being merged is fully contained within the target branch.
  • Advantages: Preserves the history of changes, making it clear when branches were merged. It avoids potential conflicts introduced by changes in both branches.
  • Disadvantages: Can create a more complex and cluttered commit history, especially in situations where many small changes are made.
• Implicit via rebase or fast-forward merge:
  • Description: This involves integrating changes by moving the branch pointer to the tip of the incoming branch. Fast-forward merges occur when the target branch has no new changes since the source branch was created.
  • Advantages: Results in a linear commit history, making it easier to follow. Fast-forward merges avoid unnecessary commit nodes, keeping the history cleaner.
  • Disadvantages: Can lose the context of when changes were originally made, as it appears that the work was all done in a linear sequence.
• Squash on merge:
  • Description: When merging, all the changes in the source branch are combined into a single commit before being merged into the target branch.
  • Advantages: Creates a cleaner, more concise commit history. Each feature or fix gets its own cohesive commit, making the history more readable.
  • Disadvantages: Loss of individual commit history, which can make it harder to trace back specific changes. May introduce larger commits that are harder to review.