Git - Merge vs rebase -

i have had @ when use git rebase instead of git merge? i'd sure solution choose in case : want implement new feature on master branch new feature branch. 10 commits on feature while else other commits on master.

my question is, if want keep branch apart master testing purposes, need test new master commits integrated. so, should merge master feature (and not feature master apply modifications on master before testing) or rebase ?

why not create new branch test merged version? example:

git checkout -b test-merged-feature master git merge my-feature [... testing ..] 

there's no particularly reason rebase here, if haven't pushed feature branch, that'd fine well. these questions partly how want history - people don't seeing lots of merges; prefer way of keeping track of commits contributed particular feature.