On the average day, I get maybe two or three package upgrades from it. Sometimes, they're packages that I'm extremely grateful to have updates for immediately (like rust-analyzer), and other times they're things that I don't use very often (or don't use directly), so I wouldn't likely remember to upgrade them at all if I didn't make a habit of it.
> Most of us want to wait a little while for the bugs to be worked out of fresh releases. And hey, if everything is working today... why would I want to risk potential breaking changes?
I felt like I was pretty clear in my original comment that I didn't know whether other people upgraded as often as me or not. That being said, it does sound like you've been having an experience you're unhappy with, and I'm not, so I'm not sure why you're so confident that the way I'm using it is weird. It's very possible that it would not end up being something you or others are happy with, but it's more weird to me that you think this is such a huge deal when it seems like the most obvious way in the world to use a package manager to me.
This is not something that's solved by updating less frequently though. It would be solved by a 'minimum age' setting, but `brew` aren't planning on implementing that, with arguably valid reasoning: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/21421
Minimum age solves a related problem - it gives maintainers some margin of time in which to discover vulnerabilities and yank the affected versions.
However, minimum age also delays you getting bug fixes (since those also need to age out).
In an ideal world one would probably be able to configure a minimum-age-or-subsequent-patch-count rule. i.e. don't adopt new major/minor package versions until either 1 month has elapsed, or a minimum of 2 patch versions have been released for that version.