Given the frequency of such issues, BW should have a beta Chrome extension
The last one was the extension always not showing the number of credentials on its badge and also took weeks to resolve.
3 Likes
An alternative approach has been proposed in this feature request, which you may consider supporting:
2 Likes
Isn’t it the same idea but phrased differently?
BW has to make the final technical call, do you guys have CI/CD? are you doing trunk based development?
Please review how the login badge count occurred.
And how did this current issue also occurred?
Without a hard look in the mirror, these regression failures are just going repeat like how the sun rises everyday.
Yes, that is why I was suggesting that you might want to support that feature request.
It seems that you are attemtping to address Bitwarden staff. To avoid misunderstanding, please note that you are in a community forum, interacting with a community of Bitwarden customers and users (not developers or managers). From time to time, Bitwarden staff do participate in the forum, but there are none present in this thread (Bitwarden employees can be recognized by a Bitwarden shield logo overlay in the corner of their profile avatars — see examples here). The forum’s volunteer moderators (like myself) are not employed by or affiliated with Bitwarden, we are just fellow customers.
The best way to communicate directly with Bitwarden is to contact customer support.
The same in that they both represent the use of a non-typical version, but different in that they operate in opposite directions.
A “beta” implies early access to an update that has not yet been publicly released. Beta is for those who want the latest and greatest, in exchange for a greater likelihood of problems, and with an unstated commitment to submit problem reports and to potentially participate in the remediation.
LTS (“long term stable”) is an “older” version that has proven itself reliable and for which the manufacturer promises longer support than they offer for other versions. This is for the person that does not need the new shiny features, and can not tolerate problems.
Your definitions are precise, but it is also precisely the problem: Not focusing on the right stuff.
The problem is that Chrome and all these app stores delay your hot fix/deployment. Instead of focusing on shortening that delay, you ponder over which model to adopt for a non-typical version.
Does it matter if your chose LTSC or Beta?
Yes, but only internally to BW because it needs to gel in with your CI/CD workflow (if you have one). That’s why it is not for us to vote but for your technical leaders to decide.
If you release a broken GA, you don’t worry about what is the issue. You revert to the last version, immediately.
All: I moved this side-discussion into its own thread, because it was diverting the topic of the original thread.
@DenBesten is not deploying any Bitwarden code.
@DenBesten has no power to “adopt” any model.
I can’t speak on whether @DenBesten has any “CI/CD workflow” or any “technical leaders”, but if so, they have nothing to do with Bitwarden.
I know all this, because @DenBesten is not a Bitwarden employee (which is evident from the absence of a Bitwarden shield logo on their profile flair).
Here in the forum, we are mostly just users of Bitwarden’s products, and most discussions on this section of the forum (Ask the Community) is for users to seek and to offer peer-to-peer assistance. For communicating user preferences to the powers-that-be at Bitwarden, there is a different forum section (Feature Requests). I had pointed you to a relevant feature request topic earlier (proposing the establishment of an LTSC). If it is important to you to distinguish between LTS and Beta channels, feel free to open a separate feature request topic to request a Beta channels.
There are good reasons for the stores introducing delay.
Those intolerant of said delay are not required to use the store. Bitwarden also publishes their releases on github, arriving within hours of their release.
It is also possible to manipulate the delay by choosing different browsers. Edge tends to release within about a day; Chrome a few days and Firefox a week or two.
If only the world were that simple. There are always tradeoffs. Me, I would not want to revert because the superfluous prompts to save are much less important to me than the improvements to biometric unlock.
I am sensing an implied intolerance for issues. That is precisely why LTSC is a concept and I encourage you to go vote for it.
Also, I am not a Bitwarden employee (nor is @grb). Both of us are Bitwarden customers/users, just like you and (almost) everyone else on the community. The only difference being that our heavy involvement has resulted in us being granted a few moderation privileges.
1 Like
Hm… this might be slightly off-topic now, but this (originally) side-discussion, made me think that I’m a bit sceptical about LTSC (as such a project probably would also need extended development efforts in itself, binding additional resources…) – and constant Beta versions don’t excite me either.
How about a third option: instead of a release cycle of two releases per month (there are usually two server releases per month: one “major” and one “minor” – excluding additional hotfix releases), only release one “major” version – with new functions – every second (or even third) month. And only bugfix releases, without new functions and potentially new bugs, until the next major release.
This wouldn’t bind additional resources for LTSC releases and could bring a more stable user experience.
Not a big fan of slowing down the feature-release cycle to once every few months because that means more changes will be released together, making it harder to identify which change causes a given problem. Plus, increases the liklihood that the fix for my bug will be delayed while the developers focus on fixing your more critical bug.
I do concur, though that the minor releases should be limited to bug fixes, so that 2025.11.latest would be the “best” of the 2025.11.x releases.
However, none of the above is really a substitute for LTSC. The primary idea behind LTSC is to allow others to forge the path forward and discover all the bugs, while I hold back until until a new-ish version has gained a good reputation.
2 Likes
I think I’m the instigator of this thread, let me give you a little background.
I’m an MSP, and tech enthusiast trying to give my customers tools to manage the authentication nightmare we have in this tech world.
I’m fine with buggy extensions that don’t work right because I want all the shiny new features fresh from Dev’s wiggly little fingers. I can write up issues, and report problems. I can debug problems to a certain level. What is happening right now with the only extension available: constant new features AND constant bugs/foundational functionality bugs in the mainline is perfectly fine…for me. What is happening right now is not production software…it’s beta/buggy but functional code.
I need something I can deploy to my thousands of users. Something that works reliably. Something that isn’t constantly changing, because trying to explain to grandma/grandpa/regular users after I’ve spent time and effort developing a teaching program and system for deploying that: works, then doesn’t, then something changes, then has bugs is another nightmare on top of the auth nightmare we’re in. Bitwarden is a tool to solve the auth problem. You have to always deal with auth many times/day. And it MUST always work. If I can’t use it with 100% reliability Bitwarden has failed on it’s primary function.
All I’m saying is pick a path and give me the options because right now there is one path and that path is bad.
Use MS and do the rings.
Use Ubuntu and do LTS vs annual.
Use browser extension beta/stable capabilities.
Whatever, but you need at least 2 paths which Bitwarden doesn’t have right now. Your 12-24 month track record with 8+ major bugs has proven you are incapable of releasing stable production software on your current YYYY/MM mainline path.
Give me something you’d be comfortable giving to your Grandma/Grandpa between one Thanksgiving family visit and the next.
You’re the OP of the feature request that I had linked in my first comment above, which sparked this side-discussion.
If there is consensus, we could potentially broaden the scope of your feature request to also include the option of beta releases as an alternative to a LTSC. In that case, I would modify the title to: “Stable (LTS) or Beta Release Channels for Bitwarden Software”.
Please remember that you are posting in a community forum, for the Bitwarden user community. Misdirecting your frustrations with Bitwarden at us fellow users (who in many cases share those same frustrations) comes off the wrong way. If you wish to communicate your concerns directly to Bitwarden, please use the contact form, instead.
1 Like
As they say, if it is free, you are the product.
Strangely in this case, even paying customers are affected and the real humans responsible for BW made little/no attempt to address the situation. Again as they say, if you don’t make a stand, someone else (us) will do it for you.
Instead, might is right, see 1 vs thousands update existing login · Issue #17405 · bitwarden/clients · GitHub - I cannot reproduce it, not pursuing, and it has been silent treatment ever since.
Similar to your situation, I once advocated paying for the BW personal plan to non tech folks, but have since stopped.
That’s an inaccurate characterization. The Github issue that was posted did not include any steps to reproduce the problem, so the thread was initially closed when Bitwarden staff were unable to reproduce the issue (Nov. 16); however, the same staff member re-opened the thread 2 days later (Nov. 18), and developers have evidently been working on the issue. Latest reports from Customer Support are that a fix will be available in the next release.
Yes this is a community…but I’m quite certain official Bitwarden Employees are also pointed towards these public resources. And when they do, I’m calling them out on their poor historical record which supports the need of the requested change.
I’ve probably signed up 200+ paying accounts personally over the last 2+ years…and every month I keep kicking myself harder and wondering if I’ve made, and are continuing to make a mistake of pushing Bitwarden as my recommended tool. I wish I had an alternative meeting my fundamental minimum requirements:
- Open source
- Sharing capabilities for both families and businesses
- integrated authenticator (TOTP)
- Passkey
I’m still looking and will probably turn the proverbial Titanic again if this isn’t fixed properly. It’s not just Bitwarden looking bad for their sloppy QC, they’re making me look bad for recommending them. 
Edit: I have been fighting this uphill battle long enough. I thought there wasn’t an alternative, but it looks like Proton Pass may just fit the bill. More testing needed…and I don’t like the default security of not having a required on-device decryption password by default (meaning they have full access to all passwords by default) but there is an added option where you can add encryption. Time to do some more regression testing. Change may be coming!
Not sure what your certainty is based on. The only Bitwarden employee I’ve seen on the forum who appears to participate as part of their official responsibilities is our community liaison (“Technical Evangelist”) @dwbit, who is not responsible for any of the issues that you have mentioned. Other Bitwarden staff occasionally participate on an as-needed basis, and decision-makers are rarely seen here. Bitwarden upper management is more frequently spotted on Reddit.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback @silversword, development is always a balance of feature development, maintenance, and security updates based on changing landscapes.
Rest assured, your feedback has been passed along to the team. If you are interested in connecting with our MSP channel partner, feel free to send me a DM.
2 Likes
“development is always a balance of feature development, maintenance, and security updates based on changing landscapes”
In the case of a mission-critical password manager, there really isn’t any question of balance. The priority should always be
- Security
- Stability
A distant 3rd might be features, but only so far as they don’t negatively impact #s 1 & 2.
All the features in the world, do no good if trust in the underlying product is lost. My trust in Bitwarden has been steadily waning due to these bugs that seem they should have been caught before release by even cursory testing.
1 Like
@helzerr The Bitwarden team takes a security-first approach. Regarding your feedback on stability, I’ve passed it to the team, who are always working actively to improve ongoing development processes.
1 Like