200-901 Infrastructure and Automation Practice Question
A developer is using Git to manage automation code. What is the primary advantage of using 'rebase' instead of 'merge' to integrate changes from a feature branch into the main branch?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that rebase is faster or automatically resolves conflicts, when in fact its true advantage is creating a linear history, which is critical for audit trails and debugging in automation workflows.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Rebase results in a linear project history
`git rebase` rewrites the commit history of the feature branch to appear as if it was branched from the latest commit on the main branch, resulting in a linear, clean project history. This avoids the merge commits that `git merge` creates, making the commit log easier to follow and debug. The primary advantage is not speed or conflict resolution, but a streamlined, non-branching history.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Rebase automatically resolves all conflicts
Why it's wrong here
Rebase replays commits one at a time and stops on conflicts, requiring the developer to resolve each manually; it resolves nothing automatically. It is tempting because merge also demands manual conflict resolution, so neither command removes that work, though rerere can replay recorded resolutions.
- ✗
Rebase is faster than merge
Why it's wrong here
Rebase performs the same three-way merge machinery per replayed commit, so it is not inherently faster and can be slower on long branches. It is tempting because rebase avoids a merge commit, and that cleaner linear history is its real benefit, not execution speed.
- ✗
Rebase preserves the exact commit timestamps
Why it's wrong here
Rebase rewrites each commit onto the new base, generating fresh commit hashes and new committer timestamps, so original timestamps are not preserved. It is tempting because rebase does produce a linear history, and that linearity, not timestamp retention, is its actual advantage over merge.
- ✓
Rebase results in a linear project history
Why this is correct
Rebase replays each feature-branch commit onto the tip of the main branch, producing a linear history without merge commits. This keeps the commit graph readable and simplifies bisecting, unlike merge, which preserves branch topology via an explicit merge commit.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 200-901 question from scratch — 975 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 200-901 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-901 exam.