Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Perhaps one reason is that fixing enough bugs to get stuff into testing is > > currently a whack-a-mole job? > > I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience > that new version of A probably requires all sorts of new crap from B > anyway...
Does it, really? Or does it simply have binary dependencies to an unstable version of B, imposed by B? If one version of A and B has been accepted in testing, chances are pretty good that the next version of A will compile and work fine against that old version of B. Most new versions are fixes, either of bugs or features. Changes that break source level compatibility are rather rare. -- Björn