Claiming that "frequent updates cause more trouble than they are worth" is utterly absurd. It is a textbook case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, driven entirely by an ostrich mentality. By that logic, we ought to revert to Windows 95 and monochrome mobile phones that do little more than send SMS messages, purely because that era was deemed the most "stable". Would anyone genuinely choose to go back?
The cornerstone of modern software engineering is iterative delivery: making swift, incremental progress. If a minor deployment goes pear-shaped, the fault can be pinpointed and rolled back within five minutes. Conversely, hoarding changes for six months or a year only to release a monolithic update—crammed with tens of thousands of lines of code—means that when catastrophe strikes, even heaven wouldn’t know where the fire started. That is not stability; it is laying a collective minefield.
Furthermore, the external threat landscape shifts daily. Exploits and vulnerabilities evolve around the clock; refusing to patch frequently is effectively leaving the front door wide open for malicious actors to treat your system like a cash machine.
The dogma of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is pure survivorship bias, bred from sheer complacency with the flaws of legacy versions. If you refuse to refine the user experience or roll out new capabilities, you will simply watch competitors cannibalise your market share.
When frequent releases lead to instability, the fault lies squarely with inadequate automated testing and sloppy quality assurance—not the release cadence itself. Blaming update frequency makes as much sense as resolving to eat only once a month because someone choked on their dinner.
Staying confined to bed guarantees you will never trip over, but that is not vibrant health; that is a vegetative state. If your product is so "stable" that it ends up obsolete, that brand of stability is nothing more than hollow self-indulgence.


Chinese / 中文:

說「頻繁更新反而問題才大」，簡直是因噎廢食、鴕鳥心態到了極致。
按照這種邏輯，大家乾脆全都退回 Windows 95，手機換回只能傳簡訊的黑白機算了，畢竟那個時代「最穩定」——但捫心自問，現在有誰真願意回去？
現代軟體工程的核心共識是「小步快跑、快速迭代」。一次改動一點點，出了問題五分鐘內就能精準定位、即時回滾；反倒是憋上半年、一年才搞一次塞進幾萬行代碼的「史詩級大更新」，一旦炸開，神仙都不知道火到底從哪裡燒起來的。這根本不叫追求穩定，這叫集體埋地雷。
更何況，外部環境瞬息萬變。駭客攻擊和底層漏洞每天都在更新，不及時打補丁，等於大門敞開任人當提款機隨便刷。「能跑就別碰」純粹是習慣了舊版本缺陷的倖存者偏差，不優化體驗、不迭代功能，下場就是眼睜睜看著市場被競品吞噬殆盡。
頻繁更新會出問題，該問責的是測試機制與自動化把關沒做到位，而不是更新節奏本身。把問題怪罪到更新頻率上，荒謬程度不亞於因為怕噎著就主張人每個月只能吃一頓飯。
天天躺在床上不動確實永遠摔不了跤，但那不叫健康，那叫植物人。產品「穩定」到直接被市場淘汰出局，這種所謂的穩定，除了自我感動之外毫無意義。

fix(manager): Added warnings for missing file access preventing log export and restricted patch inputs to .apk, .apks, and .xapk while preserving split APK integrity.

fix(loader): Made RemoteApplicationService a local stub to ensure modules load without the manager, resolving #154.

fix(manager): Corrected split signature verification by reading the base signer from the signing block to handle v3.1 rotated keys.

feat(manager): Added support for .apkm bundles and recognized duplicate download filenames like app.apk.1 as valid APKs.

同時支援了如 base.apk.1 的格式

https://bbs.binmt.cc/thread-175114-1-1.html
大家可以測試一下去簽名校驗的實際效果。目前各個去簽方案的側重點各有不同，未來或許能找到更全面的繞過方式。不過就目前而言，即便是 LSPosed 在默認配置下，依然存在四個已知的檢測風險點

規避匿名可執行段掃描，修復了對於非標準XML的解析

refactor(provider): Switch to injecting the provider via continuous classesN.dex files and remove broken reflection
- When NPatch patching, it directly places mtprovider.dex into the main DEX sequence (classesN.dex), allowing the system's native MultiDex to load it.
- Removed the runtime copying of provider.dex and the reflection injection logic for DexPathList$Element(DexFile), which does not exist on Android 8+.
- In signature bypass mode, the installer's DEX is appended via the standard addDexPath method.