git rebase
Ranked 2 of 9 version control features by recommenders
Lets people edit, reorder and fix up local commits before merging, giving a cleaner history. Caveat: the editor-based workflow is cumbersome, and rewriting history can break things.
21 people recommended git rebase in Hacker News comments, 2 had mixed feelings and 11 criticized it, November 2025 to October 2026.
Summary written by Claude from 43 comments. It was written before the November 2026 recount, and 41 of those comments still count.
34 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 21
- mixed feelings
- 2
- warn against or regret it
- 11
The record
Recommended in 8 of 12 months
In 15 different threads.
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 21 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, met.
- 1.9 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 8 of 12 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
- Recommended in 15 threadsNeeds 5 or more, met.
- The biggest thread supplies 24% of its recommendersNeeds half or less, met.
The same rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. Mixed feelings count toward neither side. How the badge works
What people say about it
Reasons grouped from a sample of 40 of the 42 opinions about it, picked in proportion to how many people recommend it, have mixed feelings and criticize it. Each mark is one comment in the sample. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Tidies local commits before merging
“Becoming very comfortable with "rebase --interactive" and other cmds for editing your (local!) history before merging helps a lot.”
Comment from 2 Jul 2026 in “Many people misunderstand the purpose of code review” “git rebase can do that easily, I do it all the time when prepping feature branches”
Comment from 15 Feb 2026 in “Inspecting the Source of Go Modules” “There are also features to automatically reorder commits with, e. g., `git commit --fixup` and `git rebase --autosquash”
Comment from 6 Dec 2025 in “Stacked Diffs with git rebase —onto” - Comment from 26 Jul 2026 in “Git rebase -I is not that scary”
- Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified”
- Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified”
Reorder and drop commits in an editor
“A clear example of text as UI is git rebase: move around lines, rename words, press save and quit…”
Comment from 22 Nov 2025 in “Things I don't like in configuration languages” “Bring able to rapidly open history list in a text editor and rearrange and issue commands in vim is fantastic.”
Comment from 30 Jul 2026 in “Staging patches with Git add -p” “Eh I just use `git rebase -i` and delete the commits I don't want. Much easier to think about.”
Comment from 5 Dec 2025 in “Stacked Diffs with git rebase —onto” Keeps long-lived local branches tidy
“I love rebase locally, especially when I have a few non-urgent branches that sit around for a little while.”
Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified” “with rebase you can work more or less as with "patches" and a single master”
Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified” Fixup and autosquash workflow
“Though an interactive rebase with fixup is even better”
Comment from 14 Dec 2025 in “Using Git add -p for fun (and profit)”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Manual editor workflow is cumbersome
“git rebase -i drops you into a text editor where you have to manually copy, move, and edit lines”
Comment from 18 May 2026 in “Mercurial, 20 years and counting: how are we still alive and kicking? [video]” “this new interface is very primitive, you see close to no context, only some commit names”
Comment from 3 Apr 2026 in “Reinventing the Pull Request” “That's not "easily". Easily would be: you drag your commit(s) from one place to another”
Comment from 3 Apr 2026 in “Reinventing the Pull Request” Rewrites history into commits never existed
“I hate it when people rebase a list of commits, because that makes commits which never existed before”
Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified” “since rebase is fundamentally wrong it only stacks the wrongness”
Comment from 28 Jan 2026 in “I made my own Git” “interactive rebasing is a horrible solution to this problem”
Comment from 18 Aug 2026 in “Splitting a Git Commit” Confusing and unpredictable behavior
“git rebase appears to be a random number generator to me”
Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified” “people are confused about rebase”
Comment from 13 Jan 2026 in “Git Rebase for the Terrified” “git rebase -i kinda sucks”
Comment from 24 May 2026 in “Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu” Easy to break the working tree
“they kept learning its footguns faster than its capabilities”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention”
Other version control features people recommend
The four most recommended other version control features, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Mixed | Criticize | Approval | Months | Had for | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Git worktree | 46 | 10 | 19 | 71% | 10 | — | Approved |
| git rebaseThis page | 21 | 2 | 11 | 66% | 8 | — | — |
| git rerere | 16 | 2 | 4 | 80% | 7 | — | Approved |
| git add -p | 11 | 2 | 4 | 73% | 6 | — | Approved |
| Git notes | 10 | 1 | 2 | 83% | 7 | — | Approved |
Also compared with Git submodules.
What people said
40 of the 42 opinions about it, picked in proportion to the three counts, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“interactive rebasing is a horrible solution to this problem”
“I sing some praises of git rebase -i, specifically linking it to a spreadsheet”
“Bring able to rapidly open history list in a text editor and rearrange and issue commands in vim is fantastic.”
“curating my commits for the benefit of the reviewer”
“it's the one clear tool that i used all the time”
“rebase interactive is pretty wild what it will let you try to automate”
“they kept learning its footguns faster than its capabilities”
“I prefer the interactive rebase and use it frequently.”
“Becoming very comfortable with "rebase --interactive" and other cmds for editing your (local!) history before merging helps a lot.”
“git rebase -i kinda sucks”
“git rebase -i drops you into a text editor where you have to manually copy, move, and edit lines”
“git rebase, for all its warts, was always better than mq.”
“it shows you the history of what is clearly, and let's you modify it as you please”
“Using `git rebase -i` just to fix a spelling error is overkill”
“this new interface is very primitive, you see close to no context, only some commit names”
“That's not "easily". Easily would be: you drag your commit(s) from one place to another”
“Take a look at `git rebase --interactive”
“the process still usually feels cleaner than with git merge”
“git rebase can do that easily, I do it all the time when prepping feature branches”
“since rebase is fundamentally wrong it only stacks the wrongness”
“Interactive rebasing to write local history on your working branch is incredibly useful”
“I love rebase locally, especially when I have a few non-urgent branches that sit around for a little while.”
“it's hard to craft commits without it”
“rebase allows you to be lazy in the development cycle while presenting a nice clean set of changes at the end of it”
“people are confused about rebase”
“It helps me to maintain logical commit history.”
“git rebase appears to be a random number generator to me”
“I hate it when people rebase a list of commits, because that makes commits which never existed before”
“with rebase you can work more or less as with "patches" and a single master”
“What you want is `git rebase`, especially with the `--onto` and `--interactive` options.”
“That’s what git-rebase is for, and it is built into standard git.”
“can either pause between steps or execute commands between steps”
“No matter what you did, you can always go back a previous state!”
“No need for the rebase to be interactive”
“Though an interactive rebase with fixup is even better”
“I for one prefer git's step-by-step rebase model that makes you address conflicts at the time of the rebase”
“There are also features to automatically reorder commits with, e. g., `git commit --fixup` and `git rebase --autosquash”
“they all do the same thing as "roll", i.e. they keep the earliest commit's date”
“Eh I just use `git rebase -i` and delete the commits I don't want. Much easier to think about.”
“A clear example of text as UI is git rebase: move around lines, rename words, press save and quit…”
Counts come from 1,791,911 Hacker News comments labeled by Claude, November 2025 to October 2026, with data through October 31, 2026. Counts updated 2 Nov 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.