I'm troubled to see quantity and date between the dot releases for LightRoom Classic.

This is a clear indication of a lack of a dedicated, experienced Quality Assurance department with a sufficient budget working directly with the developers.

Root Cause Analysis adds to the cost of patching bugs instead of determining the REAL source of the problem and eliminating it.

The time between and the quantity of Dot releases means you're patching broken code and putting out fires instead of stabilizing the product.

You're aware, as (probably) most of your user base is that there arte at least two strong contenders vying to capture LightRoom's place in the marketplace:  On1 Software and Alienskin software probably lead the pack.

LightRoom has an image management functionality the others lack; I suspect they're aware of it and are working to fill the gap.

Splitting the product was a bad idea as you now have to maintain two code bases which are similar, but not identical.  Doing that means hiring and training more staff, some of whom might think that because the products are functionally similar, the code could be reused.

They're wrong, of course, and a dedicated, experienced, fully staffed Quality Assurance department would have identified the problems early.

How much does the kind of Quality Assurance department cost?  At least as much as Development -- and it would be a Good Thing if some of the developers transferred to QA.

That won't replace an experienced QA team, but it might help.