It's true that major regressions normally get attention pretty
quickly, but
more often what happens is the consuming projects, such as Heat, fix their
master to cope with the new client behavior to un-break their gate and move
on. Again, this implies that by picking a random git version of a client,
you run the risk that various projects will just break in exciting ways.
Yeah, it's too bad that you do that. If we don't have any indication
that something broke, it's hard to know to fix it :)
FWIW, it's not that infrequent at all IME, heat regularly gets
broken by
client releases.
Fixing something like that in heat is really the wrong approach, IMHO.
You're working around the safety net that is in place, which is: "a
project gates on the things it depends on and thus when something in
that dependency breaks, we catch it immediately."
--Dan