For me, what matters is the origin version of the branch I'm working on. That means that I'll rebase locally, so that my own changes are always added on top of the origin branch. So while it's true that rebasing tends to change your history, your local history is mostly irrelevant; it's the origin's history that counts, and merging changes that while rebasing does not.
That said, what I'm talking about here are a few local commits. If you're working with a long-lived branch, and you need to add the changes made in that branch to (e.g.) the master branch, then merging makes the most sense, since rebasing might add more complexity to the process (compare that to local commits, which should never ever be 'long lived').
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
For me, what matters is the origin version of the branch I'm working on. That means that I'll rebase locally, so that my own changes are always added on top of the origin branch. So while it's true that rebasing tends to change your history, your local history is mostly irrelevant; it's the origin's history that counts, and merging changes that while rebasing does not.
That said, what I'm talking about here are a few local commits. If you're working with a long-lived branch, and you need to add the changes made in that branch to (e.g.) the master branch, then merging makes the most sense, since rebasing might add more complexity to the process (compare that to local commits, which should never ever be 'long lived').