You're probably being downvoted because you say "Not Again" to updates while using a rolling release distro. Like ordering a daily newspaper, then getting annoyed at getting a new issue every day.

Well yeah, rolling release distros inherently require more fixing because you get all of the software as it is patched with far less testing for conflicts. If you want something you have to fix less get a stable release

Maybe because the jre thing was an update that required manual intervention, there was an Arch news item about it. You're expected to read the Arch news before an update when you're running Arch. This can be automated with alias update='yay -Pw && pacman -syu' If that's too much for you, use a different distro.

Arch is great when you're somewhat experienced with Linux. Otherwise I recommend an Arch + QoL distro like EndeavourOS.

I'm a developer using Linux for well over a decade and a half and I use EndeavourOS because it just adds a level of ease.

Are you talking about the major java/jre repackaging issue, that was announced (proposed update procedure included) on the archlinux news-page, that you are supposed to check before an update?

If so, then you can't really blame the distro, if you don't follow basic best practice guidelines.
And then you'd also be pretty late to that update and should run updates more frequently. Once a week to at least once a month is a good idea. That's the idea of a kinda bleeding edge, rolling release distro.

If you want rolling release, but still a stable distro, just go with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, it's a rolling release with snapshots that you can go back to if something breaks. IIRC they also have a special app verification thingy that's supposed to be more stable than Arch's.

If you want reliable updates Arch isn't the best fit IMO.

It can be perfectly reliable for sure, but it's permitted not to be.

If you really want to update and not worry about it, I would consider Fedora, they test updates and upgrades while also being very close to bleeding edge.