This is Bugzilla, yes.

Or Trac, or Jira, or 8 million other systems. Launchpad. RT.
Excellent post.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
I think bug tracking is haphazard as evidenced by their approach in general.
Agreed.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
We had two environments - "production" and "test" for sandboxing.
Yep, pretty standard. It's better with (at least) a third environment - one that's as close to production as possible. It's bizarre - that's a 4-digit dollar investment, and some code-moving changes, but it'll save you hours every time. Remember that last update where they went ___ hours over... oh right. All of them. How does that happen after the first time?
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
To address your question: I don't think they track bugs other than in a haphazard fashion. I'm sure that there used to be a bug tracking system, but it was "someone else's" and has fallen into neglect.
Completely agree, and I'd add one crucial part here: I think they're lazy and too entrenched. The problem with a company like Turbine is you have nobody who's accountable but also knows a) coding and b) coding within the system. That's where the producer steps in and says 'wtf, three weeks to fix this string table error?" When you have codemonkeys who set their own schedules and are indispensible, you're going to have issues.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
1. The online bug reporting tool doesn't work. Why the frack not? how fracking hard can it be? ... A convenient excuse to minimise bug reports that you have to read?
Yes. (Seriously. I can't come up with any other reason than they're overwhelmed with reports. Were.)
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
2. ...What is the criteria for the "official list"?
This they've actually described before... it's basically "we have enough reports." Kind of cheap, because that *should* mean "we can replicate it, we know what's up, so more reports won't help." I have no idea what it actually means, because some of that shit's been on there for literally *years*.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
3. When they do fix bugs, they forget to mention it in the release notes sometimes. If they were serious about bugs, there would be more transparency and reporting. If they were fixing bugs and tracking them, they could easily roll out a list to quell the "whiners". Never seen it done.
That's in line with the above. They have no QA. You can't just use the changelog summary, because with these idiots it's 50 lines of "after you drag the stone to your bag..." You need somebody in between Varg and Cordo, where the shit actually gets *tested*. Not only are the release notes incomplete, half the time they're wrong, and 90% of those are shit you can confirm/deny in five minutes. Spend an extra hour and go through your list, and just check them off. It's so basic. Blood pressure rising...
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
4. Bugs are being fixed, but it is completely haphazard ... This to me is a clear indication of a haphazard system where devs pick the low hanging fruit to fix to meet some arbitrary KPI.
Probably right. Ties in with nobody being accountable to how long things should take. "Look, I fixed 35 bugs this month!" "Yeah, but 30 of those are string table errors."
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
5. Bugs re-appear over and over again. Poor code version control.
Agreed, although version control doesn't really have anything to do with bug tracking itself. This is two things: bad version control and shitty testing. There are arguments for and against test-driven development (where you write the test first, and then the code, or vice versa), but in either case, first thing you do when you find a bug in *existing* code is write a fucking test! That way, when some idiot "fixes" bags, it blows up right away, before it hits Lam, and everybody figures it out but nobody reports it because omg won't this be fun and now it's live and now your economy's shot for *years*.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
Last count, it has 4 developers and 1 system engineer left + some other support types. Who do you think does the bug identification?
I think they don't. We're not arguing about that. :-D I think they have a system in place. It's just not used well. Partly that's understaffing, partly it's shit code, and mostly lethargy.
Look, here's the problem: you can't fire these guys until the game's not making money. Warner's gonna milk this thing until it's just Fran buying cakes to get through EN LoD and Uurlock and Cordo jerking each other off in some warehouse. And probably longer - look up Hollywood Accounting - they're experts at keeping losing companies around until it *actually* hurts the bottom line. The problem is not that Warner knows that, it's that *Turbine* knows that. How hard do you work when you know they can't live without you? It'd be almost impossible to bring somebody new in at this point to do anything other than specialization - AI, graphics stuff, sound... nobody would take this job anyway, since the pay is shit and you'd have to live in Boston.
DropBear wrote on Jul 29
th, 2015 at 12:21am:
Summary: I reckon it's a complete mess.
That sums it up nicely.