Because updates don't just include new features but also bug and security fixes. As always, it probably depends on the context how relevant this is to you. I agree that cooldown is a good idea though.

> Because updates don't just include new features but also bug and security fixes.

This practice needs to change, although it will be almost impossible to get a whole ecosystem to adopt. You shouldn’t have to take new features (and associated new problems) just to get bug fixes and security updates. They should be offered in parallel. We need to get comfortable again with parallel maintenance branches for each major feature branch, and comfortable with backporting fixes to older releases.

IMO for “boring software” you usually want to be on the oldest supported main/minor version, keeping an eye on the newest point version. That will have all the security patches. But you don't need to take every bug fix blindly.

For any update:

- it usually contains improvements to security

- except when it quietly introduces security defects which are discovered months later, often in a major rev bump

- but every once in a while it degrades security spectacularly and immediately, published as a minor rev