[hammyhavoc]

This seems in stark contrast to others complaining enough about breaking updates that I haven't bothered to try it until it is deemed "stable".

Is it really that stable and flawless in terms of updates?

Because I'm sat here with ZFS, snapshotting and replication configured and wondering why people scare others off of it when the tools to mitigate issues are all free and should be used anyway as part of a bog-standard self-hosted stack.

[lucideer]

I've only been running it for about a year (August last year) & from skimming those comments I get the impression I got in at the right time - there's a sense that they've improved stability a lot lately compared to what it was like & it may still be burdened with the fallout of reputational damage from that period.

I also perform all my updates manually - it's fully automated: a simple script that runs in seconds across my entire home server - but I don't have it on any schedule so I'm not doing anything blind. That at least affords me the luxury of being present if/when anything breaks (though for Immich that has not occurred yet).

[i-am-gizm0]

I've also been running it for a year or two now. There used to be a lot more "breaking" releases but that's slowed way down recently as they approach a "stable" release. As long as you don't use Watchtower or other tools that blindly update containers immediately, you're all set. When there are breaking changes, they are extremely clearly marked in the release notes with migration steps included. So as long as you read those you're all set