Can I request there be a LTS like chromium based Bitwarden extension that lags far enough behind that all the new (usually UI interface) bugs are minimized across the millions of install base.
I’m an IT Consultant, that is trying to get my client base to use and be confident in Bitwarden. The constant UI changes, new bugs that your QA dept isn’t finding before releases that non technical users are constantly encountering is constantly giving Bitwarden a bad look.
login counts on browser icon not showing reliably
Port error on signin when sending email MFA (even though it sends the MFA code)
Completely rearranged UI
extension failing to sync on server updates
not filling password related to a select autofill on a 2nd page load when filled from login
repeated extension preference not obeyed when set in options
extension preference reset on new extension update
are just a few items off the top of my head. About every 2nd or 3rd update something that previously works is broken/changed/moved.
There are 10% of users that like the newest bells and whistles…everyone else just wants it to not change, and just work.
@silversword I modified your topic title and tags to make your feature request more generally applicable to all Bitwarden extensions and apps — not just the Chrome extension (old title was: “Stable chromium browser extension - Like Ubuntu LTS”; new title: “LTS and Stable Release Channels for Bitwarden Client Apps”).
Yes, you can have one of my few remaining votes. I am already delaying updates to simulate the LTS experience, which takes a lot of work. I wish I had the option of not having to pay so much attention to Bitwarden’s bug reports and still not run into Bitwarden bugs on a regular basis.
I think the number of people tagging onto a few bug reports is a very good indicator that those kinds of bugs shouldn’t have passed internal testing in the first place.
How are you doing that? The only way I could even possibly do that would be with chrome with admx policies applied, and locking extension versions. I run an RMM…and if I could work out the scripts to apply that I could see that as a possible option (that at least I can implement).
Bitwarden development QA has decreased noticeably in the past year or so, with “big” bugs being introduced and taking months to fix.
Can I add to your list:
Extension icon staying grey after logging in sometimes
Number of passwords saved for current website not showing after logging in to/unlocking the extension for the current website (it does if I switch tabs)
Loading circle keeps spinning and no password entries ever show after unlocking the extension, until I leave it and return to it in a while
It seems more likely that they plan to enforce this policy regarding self-hosting customers rather than the cloud-based ones.
Even with holding back on the updates, cloud-based users don’t typically keep using the old clients for more than a year or two. If you come to this forum asking about a one-year-old client that still fits what Bitwarden says they would support, people on the forum would tell you to update the client first.
On the other hand, a one-year-old client now wouldn’t be able to deal with the “new device verification” requirement, except by turning it off.
I actually came here today to post a thread like this and I’m glad to see someone else already did.
I work at a small MSP and after years of using Bitwarden Personal with great satisfaction, I pushed to make it our org-wide password manager and also to get us in the MSP program to resell it to clients. Since then, we’ve run into a number of bugs that should not have gotten past QA such as:
Desktop app Windows Hello authentication straight breaking.
MFA tokens going out of sync with time and not working for several of my techs.
The extension no longer showing a matching cred count on web sites. This is still ongoing.
Bitwarden CLI suddenly requiring me to re-enter my master password before every single operation it’s asked to do in a script. This started randomly and got escalated all the way to one of your engineers who was great to deal with, but who literally couldn’t find the cause. This is still ongoing.
The clickjacking vulnerability that was just recently revealed.
This type of glacial feature development and sloppy QA is not becoming of a product that is trying to sell to businesses and has Enterprise in its name. If not already underway, Bitwarden needs to undergo a thorough internal process review and needs solid, immutable, transparent QA processes. As the OP asked, having an LTS branch, along with Stable or potentially even Canary branches would not go amiss either.
I really like BItwarden in general, but I get questions from both clients and my management about things like the above because if they cause us headaches as IT pros, we can only imagine what it would be like for end users trying to do the same. Convincing clients to onboard to a password manager is a challenge unto itself, but trying to get them to stick with it when bugs and frustrations like this keep coming up is borderline impossible.
I can’t convince my management to stick with the product indefinitely while this continues and if the product I pushed for ends up having to get replaced because of it, I will be very upset at taking the reputational hit because of a vendor’s sloppiness. These types of procedural growing pains aren’t unheard of in small companies (we’ve had them ourselves), but when you’re selling a critical security service, a cut above that is needed.
To conclude, I’m asking you guys please, you have a great product, just please get your process house in order.
I was wondering, if the dev team could use proper testing before releasing the browser extensions.
Currently I am too afraid to automatically update the extension.
2025.7.0 rendered the browser unusable. 2025.7.1 improved the situation slightly, but it’s still not as snappy and resource-conscious as 2025.6.x.
Dumb side question: why is the faulty commit not reverted until a proper fix is found and implemented?
2025.8.0 has reports that auto-fill does not work anymore. Hmm, this is the most basic functionality of the extension, yet the dev team didn’t catch this?
I am not trying to bash the devs, although they certainly deserve some scolding. There are testing tools available, like Playwright. Wouldn’t it be possible to add such tests to verify that at least the most basic things work?