Das Krebsrisiko, was von HPV ausgeht, wird um so viel gesenkt. Nicht das allgemeine Krebsrisiko.

Falls jemand bisher nur den Titel gelesen hat…

Jo, so wie auch so Motorsensen nochmal deutluch nerviger als Rasenmäher sind…

You’re right that there is a risk, that rebasing introduces compile errors or even subtle breakages. The thing is, version control works best, if you keep the number of different versions to a minimum. That means merging back as soon as possible. And rebases simultaneously help with that, but also definitely work best when doing that.

There may be reasons why you cannot merge back quickly, typically organizational reasons why your devs can’t establish close-knit communication to avoid conflicts that way, or just not enough automation in testing. In that case, merges may be the right choice.
But I will always encourage folks to merge back as soon as possible, and if you can bring down the lifetime of feature branches (or ideally eliminate them entirely), then rebases are unlikely to introduces unintended changes and speed you up quite a bit.

I don’t work with merges, so maybe I’m way off base, but I thought they meant, they’re working on another branch or fork, then merging the base branch into theirs every so often to get the newest changes, and then that creates multiple merge commits, which they can’t squash at the end…?

I’m not sure, about that last part, but the rest, I’ve definitely seen with contributors that didn’t know to work with rebases (and unfortunately we’re on GitHub, which only half-assedly supports working with rebases by default).

You might prefer working with rebases + fast-forward-only merges, if you want merge commits to be squashed…

(As in, there won’t be any merge commits. Your PR will look as if you forked, then coded real fast, and then opened the PR before anyone else pushed anything.)

I live in the year 2026, I’m pretty sure, and this still made so little sense to me, that I assumed they meant “hacking a water fountain” as in hitting it with an axe.

I find a gameplay goal more important than a story goal. Sandbox games like Luanti are tricky for me, because I need to decide what to do with no real reason to do anything. But if a roguelike tells me “There’s an artifact at the bottom of this dungeon. Good luck!”, that’s already more story motivation than I need, because the gameplay goal is straightforward.

I also find lots of story motivations terrible to begin with, though, when it’s basically “You’re the hero! Go save the world!” and then the gameplay is just genocide. I don’t care, if we’re violencing pixels, but specifically the attempt to justify this violence, is almost always distasteful.

I think, lots of players would like to communicate with game devs, but you’re rarely told how to do so…