Roman influence was already significant before the Roman conquest, roughly since the late IInd century BCE (a bit before the conquest of the provincia).Treaties were passed with Gaulish states and coalitions, especially with Aiduoi who controlled not just their confederation and the road from Rhone to Seine but also had a certain dominance over Celtic Gaulish states, in order to ensure a flourishing trade (tableware, oil, wine) to the point eastern Gaulish coinage seems to have been indexed on half the value of a Roman denarius.
"Tribe", in the anthropologic meaning of the word (human groups tied by familial, imaginary or not, ties with a fluid social organisation) can't be attributed to late Gaulish culture : we'd be rather talking there about decentralized states (Caesar's civitates, including several pagi which might be identified with Gaulish teuta, tribe/citizenship) themselves held regionally trough coalition or assembly patronage.These complex state structures (Aiduoi,for instance, had the equivalent of a constitution and institutional rules) knew factional development of their politics, as Caesar accounted for.
In Gaul there are factions not only in all the states, and in all the cantons and their divisions, but almost in each family, and of these factions those are the leaders who are considered according to their judgment to possess the greatest influence, upon whose will and determination the management of all affairs and measures depends. And that seems to have been instituted in ancient times with this view, that no one of the common people should be in want of support against one more powerful; for, none [of those leaders] suffers his party to be oppressed and defrauded, and if he do otherwise, he has no influence among his party. This same policy exists throughout the whole of Gaul; for all the states are divided into two factions.
Until the IInd century BCE, Druids seems to have enjoyed a great political role, not just amongst their own people, but as part of some sort of political-spiritual pan-Gaulish confraternity which regularly assembled. It's still debated what lead to a decline of Druidism in Gaul at this point (a conjunction of the damages of Cimbrii and Teutoni in Gaul; and the Roman influence from the South, possibly), and how much this decline was important (did Diviciacos stressed being Druid or not in this period?) but their traditional role of diplomats and intermediaries seems to have suffered some backlash and to have been more localized to their own states, making relations between them more likely to escalate.
While Gaulish factions took a lot of forms and were primarily functioning trough inner politics, one obvious polarization was a pro or anti-roman approach depending. Practically every Gaulish state we have a glimpse of their policies did have such opposition, Aiduoi included (Diviciacos, pro-roman and his anti-roman brother Dumnorix) and during the war (for Aruernoi, pro-roman Epasnactos and anti-roman Vercingetorix). Again, this polarization wasn't set in stone : out of opportunism, pressure or to Roman presence threatening local interests, people changed sides, radicalized or compromised, etc.In a sense, pro and anti-Roman policies could be similar to the opposition between Optimates and Populares in Rome, owing to other matters and whom differences could be sometimes superficial.
Pro-Roman Gaulish elites were,thanks to their relations with Romans (Diviciacos was hosted by Cicero probably because both knew each other indirectly trough wine trading), could set up an efficient patronage and political networking, or at least hoped obtaining a similar position Aiduoi had (Arvenrs attempted without success to be considered "blood-brothers" of Romans as their rivals were considered). Rome, on the other hand, did intervened in Gaulish matters before Caesar by considering Ariovistos as a friend of Rome (possibly due to his opposition to Sequanoi, then foes of Aiduoi, this support fading when Ariovistos clashed with the latter).More or less anti-Roman did preexisted to Caesar's campaign, hinted by the alliance between Sequanoi and Eleuetoi, which were at least considered hostile and threatening to band with others.
Caesar eventually supported his interventions in Gaul trough the assembly of Celtic Gaul,and the assembly of all Gaul, dominated by Aiduoi which gave the general the protectorate of Gaul,more or less, making his intervention gaining a legalist veneer.
Right from the start of Roman conquest, some peoples and among them the more important, were ready to accept a Roman protectorate out of interest or pressure. Vercingetorix himself most probably was an auxiliary of Caesar at some point. Until -56, without being a constitutional walk, Gaulish opposition was relatively meagre.As Roman fiscal,commercial (increasing importance and monopoly of Roman traders), military and political pressure (especially as Caesar set up client kings against the wishes of the population) was felt more seriously, however, a general anti-Roman feeling appeared (at first in peripheral regions where Roman influence never was that strong). Caesar almost systematically dealt with this by heavily punishing revolts (killing off their senates and enslaving when not massacring the population). The general Gaulish revolt of -52 was a mix of disappointed nobles having hoped their alliance would have owed them something, people seeing in Romans an obstacle to their interests, people politically opposed to a Roman protectorate and (such as Aeduoi) some playing both sides.Their defeat meant an almost literal beheading of anti-Roman forces in Gaul.
Still, you did have local revolts after -51. We don't know much about them, however.
In -46, Bellovacoi revolte against Romans. Giving that they participated to every major revolt before, it could point to a permanence of previous feelings.In -39/38, revolts happened in Rhineland (allied with Germans) and Aquitaine, without any mentioned people. The definitive settlement of Ubii in Belgica could be interpreted as being ordered to watch over the region as allies.Again in -30/-29, Morinoi and other Belgians possibly supported by Germans revolted anew.In -29, Aquitains and Treviroi rebelled and after their defeat, Gaul was re-organized in provinces.
After that, troubles and revolts have a distinct anti-fiscal stance, as soon as Licinius' abuses against Gaulish elites (such as "adding" two fiscal months) or Sacrovir's revolt,which concerned more romanized Gauls striving for fiscal liberty firstmost.
As most opposition to Romans was crushed,and elite benefiting from Roman alliance remained, there was nobody left to really manage and to officer another armed opposition in Gaul in a regional scale, especially as peoples traditionally more or less hostile to Rome were ravaged. We're talking of ten years of war, including political strife and quasi-civil war, with ten of thousands of victims on battlefield or due to massacres, and probably the same being enslaved. Anything that could have represented a possible new rebellion was utterly broken (especially after the wake-up call of -52), when pro-Romans flourished,which supported an already present political romanization,which happened fairly quickly compared to Africa or Hispania.
Simply said, most of remaining Gaulish elite after Caesar, with noted exceptions, continued their Romanising policies as was their broad interest; adopted more and more Roman features and by the late Ist century CE, not much of Gaulish civilization remained.
Sources
Vercingétorix - Jean-Louis Brunaux
La vie politique des Gaulois - Emmanuel Arbarbe
Vercingétorix, chef de guerre - Alain Deyber