I think this is a fake quote that somebody made up for an Internet comedy bit, since it seems unlikely for Hollywood actress Sydney Sweeney to have such uncharacteristically strong opinion on software version control, of all things.

Because she of all people would know that there isn't anything wrong with using git merge, and it ultimately comes down to personal preference to what you are used to.

Why is anyone using X in 2024?

Imagine rewring history

I prefer to rebase as well. But when you're working with a team of amateurs who don't know how to use a VCS properly and never update their branc with the parent branch, you end up with lots of conflicts.

I find that for managing conflicts, rebase is very difficult as you have to resolve conflicts for every commit. You can either use rerere to repeat the conflict resolution automatically, or you can squash everything. But when you're dealing with a team of Git-illiterate developers (which is VERY often the case) you can either spend the time to educate them and still risk having problems because they don't give a shit, or you can just do a regular merge and go on with your life.

Those are my two cents, speaking from experience.

Please for the love of god don't use merge, especially in a crowded repository. Don't be me and suffer the consequences. I mistakenly mention every person with a commit between the time I created the branch until current master.

ITT: people who have no idea how rebasing works.

Okay this is the second time I've seen Sydney Sweeney referenced in a meme in less than half a day. I had never heard of her before. Who is she, and why is she suddenly attracting so much meme attention?

Rebasing is for noobs.

git reset head~42
git push -f

I've been using merge, and I hate that I don't even know what rebase really does

Did she just tell people up git good?

I used to only merge. Now I rebase. The repo is set up to require squash and rebase when going to main.

All the garbage "spelled thing wrong" and "ran formatter" commits go away. Main is clean and linear.

I know this is a meme post, but can someone succinctly explain rebase vs merge?

I am an amateur trying to learn my tool.

I'll go one further: use git rebase --interactive

git merge --no-ff

Heres my based af workflow:

git checkout -b feature-branch

rebase on top of dev whilst working locally

git rebase origin/dev-branch && git push -f

if i need to fix conflicts with dev-branch during a PR

git merge origin/dev

Anyone mind explaining to me how git rebase is worth the effort?

git merge has it's own issues but I just don't see any benefit to rebase over it.

Rebase feature branch, merge commit into main (NO SQUASH).

I personally prefer "git off my lawn"

git rebase is only for terrorists. 🥸

Also for me when I’ve been drinking and committed some really stupid shit into the repo. No one needs to know what I really think of my team members.

Fuck a merge commit! Rebase ervray day bay bayyy.

You had me a "Sydney Sweeney reveals".

Daily circlejerk

I like rebase, it's everyone else that hate it when I rebase main twice a day.

i like to create ten different checkouts of main, rebase them all slightly differently and then no fast forward merge them all back into each other

I know how to use git pull, git push, git commit, git status and git add *. I don't even know how git commit and git push works I just know you run them in that order. Whenever I break everything I give up and go outside.

do it often. you may end up with 150 conflicts to have to wade through.

I like the idea of it and there were times i used it correctly, but most of the time i do it wrong i guess.

To produce 1 commit, I end up rebasing the damm thing at least 3 times. If there is an problem, it's at least 2³ times.