Who’s trying to be realistic by attempting to release software with some quality expectations, notably by making the upgrade process seamless and introducing as little bugs as possible?
The problem with that argument is that 5.10.0 did contain regressions.
That the rarity of releases is justified by the high quality standards being adhered to is, unfortunately, merely polite fiction. What it all boils down to is simple:
No matter how much we’d like for it to be otherwise, shit happens. The release process needs to be reality-based: it needs to deal with the very real fact that shit happens and has in fact already happened. The only realistic way to deal with that is for releases to be easy enough that the shit that does invariably happen can be dealt with soon enough, so that it won’t cause too many people too much trouble.
And the best way to make releases easy is to make them frequently.
And the simplest (though not only) way to ensure that is to put them on a schedule.
That is all.
Whenever I hear someone saying we should have regular releases, I hear we should release when Venus enters Pisces.
There is your misunderstanding, then: what they are really saying is we need a reliable plan for dealing with accidents. If you can make that happen without sticking to scheduled releases, that’s fine too.
Yes: releasing often does not affect the quality of software by itself. But releasing it rarely almost certainly will – negatively. Because shit happens.
I don’t like it either! But that’s reality for you. I doesn’t care what you like. It just is.