>using software
>consistently experience extremely annoying bug
>have to start diving through my system logs
>googling the errors because i have no idea what they even mean
>eventually find out the problem's already been fixed but only in the upstream
>fix is only gonna be coming in version 7.23
>release has been on version 7.22 for months with no sign of a next version
>i have to manually figure out what's causing the problem, then find the package causing it, then figure out how to compile the new version and then figure out how to replace my system package with it every single time this shit happens
This has happened like 4 or 5 times now and it gets real annoying real quick. Why should every user either have to do all this shit (including non-technical users who might not even know how to check their system logs), or have to just sit on their ass and have to tolerate the bug for months or longer, when the developer could just have the problem be solved automatically for everyone immediately by just... releasing the fix?

>but the version needs to be tested first
How does it make sense to not release a version that we *know* will fix at least one bug, just because of the possibility that maybe there might be another bug? Option A: guarantee we fix at least one bug, but possibility of there being other bugs. Option B: guarantee at least one bug will keep the software broken, just so that we don't risk the *possibility* of bringing in other bugs.
How does picking option B make any sense at all? If there's a fix, just release it

>but muh stability
The software is already broken, deliberately not releasing the fix the problem doesn't seem like stability to me.
Regardless, if you really want to use old ass software because you're scared of potential new bugs (even if it means fixing old bugs, apparently), isn't that what Debian is for?
But I have this problem and I'm using rolling-release Arch.

I don't understand this shit. Why can't they just release the damn fix?