# Discourse does not ship an LTS release **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [July 28, 2025, 12:13am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-does-not-ship-an-lts-release/376086 "2025-07-28T00:13:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![SkyeDragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3e96dc/32.png) [@SkyeDragon](https://meta.discourse.org/u/SkyeDragon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2025, 9:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-does-not-ship-an-lts-release/376086/6 "2025-08-05T21:46:47Z")
> [@merefield](#): > > To support that it needs a lot of user feedback. I think there is a clear implicit strategy to promote `tests-passed` because that supports early feedback on new changes. Given management’s refusal to undo unpopular changes like the plugin bundling, I don’t think this part is accurate. _Maybe_ from a QA perspective, but even then I’ve had several kinda gnarly bugs not get fixed in past. At the end of the day, I realize they’re the ones investing time & money into it, so they get to make their decisions, but IMO I don’t think it’s a strategy to get more feedback. I think the more realistic reason they do not support a proper LTS is it would cost someone on the team time managing/documenting it though. It’s a feature that primarily benefits self-hosters, so I imagine it would be considered a timesink to them. But it is kind of an expected feature and not having it is a real downside when forum admins choose their forum software since other contemporaries have more stable offerings. --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-does-not-ship-an-lts-release/376086)._