Yeah, but that’s kind of just how it is. But isn’t that how it should be? Imagine if you made a breaking change to the shared repo, would you want the consuming repos to automatically update? I’d rather update them manually so I would know to test everything.
I think the key is communication. I think you need to document exactly what is in the common repo and agree with both consuming teams how the items in the common repo will work, perhaps writing out “contracts”. And making it very clear when changes are happening to what elements in which versions so they know what to check. I think the key here is communication.