It's because LJ has fubared something in the latest release they rolled out yesterday. There was a post about it on one of the official Dreamwidth comms - I'll see if I can find it.
It's not just DW it's fubared - it's broken all sorts of third party login clients, and there's a lot of ranting on the lj-release comm over on LJ. Not to mention the whole massive security breach it resulted in, which LJ have now dismissed as being 'minor'. After the rollout, a lot of people, when they went to check their inbox or edit entries, were shown the cache (LJ says 'cache' and therefore wouldn't have been able to edit anything) of the last person to use the page. Which meant, of course, they could see messages in the inbox and locked entries they weren't supposed to have access to.
LJ said this only lasted 3 minutes, but the reports that rolled in from users suggest it was/is more widespread.
I read about the login fubar. My back-up utility of choice, LJBook, which I attempted to use once I heard about the logic fiasco is fubar'd, as is ljlogin which I use to switch between accounts when I'm using Firefox.
What's more I am yet again failing to receive comment notifications from louisedennis - that happened after their last release and took about 10 days to clear up.
All minor stuff but I do wonder exactly who it is they get to test these releases.
I'm glad your bug is fixed. I think I'm doomed with the cross-posting. All attempts to redo my settings (including deleting LJ as a cross-post site and then setting it up again fresh) have failed with various error messages, some of which other people are getting. I think I'm doomed.
I can sort of see why these problems might not have been picked up in testing, though it does suggest they are not very serious about third party developers (which I suppose is fair enough, Google isn't either), but the problems with the RTF editor and the last release are seriously WTF? I don't use the RTF editor, but having had to help a couple of users out of the mangling it did on their entries it boggles my mind that anyone could have tested it at all without realising it was seriously fubar.
LJ users who claim we're all being too demanding and these things happen are also starting to seriously piss me off. Yes bugs get through testing, but the increasing frequency with which they get through LJ's testing suggests that they aren't even attempting a minimum standard for software quality. As you say DreamWidth provides a much better model for how user expectations can be managed, and how to deal with bugs when they inevitably appear, though whether they could maintain that in the face of a userbase LJ's size is a moot point.
Meh! Can't get DreamWidth to save the password. I'll try again tomorrow when it isn't bed time. Wouldn't surprise me at all if I'm not doing something dumb.
My somewhat limited understanding of the problem is that if you had DreamWidth set up to automatically send the password then cross-posting is unaffected, however I had it set up so I had to type the password in every time (unintentionally so, admittedly, I hadn't realised there was another option). Attempt to reconfigure my account so the password is stored automatically are currently failing, and it seems other people trying to reconfigure their accounts are also having the same problem so, IIUC, until DreamWidth manage to figure out what LJ currently wants for remote login and then update their code this end, I can't crosspost.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:17 pm (UTC)It's not just DW it's fubared - it's broken all sorts of third party login clients, and there's a lot of ranting on the lj-release comm over on LJ. Not to mention the whole massive security breach it resulted in, which LJ have now dismissed as being 'minor'. After the rollout, a lot of people, when they went to check their inbox or edit entries, were shown the cache (LJ says 'cache' and therefore wouldn't have been able to edit anything) of the last person to use the page. Which meant, of course, they could see messages in the inbox and locked entries they weren't supposed to have access to.
LJ said this only lasted 3 minutes, but the reports that rolled in from users suggest it was/is more widespread.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:20 pm (UTC)What's more I am yet again failing to receive comment notifications from
All minor stuff but I do wonder exactly who it is they get to test these releases.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:24 pm (UTC)Wait. Are you supposed to test these things before you roll them out? [/sarcasm]
I'll say one thing for Dreamwidth - they give code tours in advance and before they roll stuff out.
However, the bug on AO3 seems now to be fixed, since my fic is finally marked as complete. I'm sure you were really worried about it ::g::
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 08:47 am (UTC)I can sort of see why these problems might not have been picked up in testing, though it does suggest they are not very serious about third party developers (which I suppose is fair enough, Google isn't either), but the problems with the RTF editor and the last release are seriously WTF? I don't use the RTF editor, but having had to help a couple of users out of the mangling it did on their entries it boggles my mind that anyone could have tested it at all without realising it was seriously fubar.
LJ users who claim we're all being too demanding and these things happen are also starting to seriously piss me off. Yes bugs get through testing, but the increasing frequency with which they get through LJ's testing suggests that they aren't even attempting a minimum standard for software quality. As you say DreamWidth provides a much better model for how user expectations can be managed, and how to deal with bugs when they inevitably appear, though whether they could maintain that in the face of a userbase LJ's size is a moot point.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:18 pm (UTC)http://dw-maintenance.dreamwidth.org/38097.html
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 12:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 08:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 08:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 08:41 am (UTC)