It all depends on cycles, typs of bugs and what you want to adress. This is from personal experience:
In a good week, I can squash 40 bugs... but they arent system-altering things, they're usually bugs where the code is outta line a bit and I need to re-adjust. Bad week... 5 or 10 get done. Not because I'm having a bad week myself, but because I had to spend 6 hours trailing a bug that in the end needed recoding of 5 or 10 characters.
Could I bring out a patch at the end of the week? Sure, but that works because our software is spread over two layers: A "forms" server and a database server. The forms server and database server each have their own layer of software, and I can adjust either... the forms server patching is simply a matter of copying files. The database server-software can be extracted from the database and made ready to re-apply in about half a day ( ok, one hour if im pushing it, but then everything must be perfect at the first go and no additional scripting must be required, and only one test-run can be done).
Does that make me feel happy? No. I prefer to have the entire staff testing, but if I have to recall all of our consultancy guys as well as grab all the techies for four days to test the system, that means we loose four days of other projects and four days of consultancy. In effect, a) we get 4 days behind on other schedules and we loose lots of cash for four days. See? There's a balance.
Just be glad you're not in an Alpha test. I was in Guild Wars Alpha... it was interesting, but fun was not involved.