How should I document bugs in my game?

Through your bug tracker, not a separate document. A good tracker records each bug automatically: what it is, its context (device, version, stack trace), its status, and its activity history, which is exactly the documentation you need, kept current as you work. Maintaining a parallel hand-written bug document would be redundant effort that drifts out of sync with the tracker's reality.

Do I Need to Document My Bugs?

Q: Do I need to document my bugs?

Yes, bugs need to be recorded somewhere durable rather than held in your head, where they get forgotten and re-investigated from scratch. But you shouldn't maintain separate documentation by hand, let your bug tracker be the documentation. A good tracker captures each issue with context, status, and history automatically, so the documentation happens as a byproduct of capture.

Q: Why does documenting bugs matter?

Because undocumented bugs, ones that live only in your memory, get lost, re-encountered, and re-investigated from scratch. Durable records prevent that and build institutional memory: a history of past issues tells you which areas are fragile, whether a bug has recurred, and what was tried before, making future debugging faster. That compounding value only exists if bugs were recorded durably, which a tracker does automatically.

Quick answer: Yes, but let your tracker do it. You don't need separate documentation, a good bug tracker that captures each issue with context, status, and history is your documentation. The key is that bugs are recorded somewhere durable, not held in your head.

"Document my bugs?" sounds like extra work, writing up bugs in some separate document. The better framing: bugs need to be recorded durably, but your bug tracker should be that record. You need bug documentation, but you shouldn't be maintaining it by hand on top of your tracker.

Bugs in Your Head Don't Count

The real risk this question addresses is bugs that exist only in your memory, you know about an issue, mean to deal with it, and forget. Undocumented bugs get lost, re-encountered, and re-investigated from scratch. So yes, bugs need recording somewhere durable, outside your head, where they persist and can be acted on.

Bugnet captures every report and crash automatically with context, so bugs are recorded the moment they occur without you writing anything. The documentation happens as a byproduct of capture, which is exactly how it should work.

Your Tracker Is the Documentation

You don't need separate bug documentation alongside your tracker, that's duplicated effort. A good tracker already documents each bug: what it is, its context (device, version), its status, its history of activity and attempts. That record is your bug documentation, kept automatically as you work.

Bugnet maintains this per-issue, context, status, activity trail, so the documentation is the tracker. Maintaining a parallel bug document by hand would just be redundant work that drifts out of sync with reality.

Good Records Pay Off Over Time

The payoff of documented bugs compounds: a history of past issues tells you which areas are fragile, whether a bug has recurred, and what was tried before. This institutional memory makes future debugging faster and prevents re-solving the same problem, value you only get if bugs were recorded durably in the first place.

Bugnet's history and per-version data are exactly this institutional memory, built automatically. So: yes, you need your bugs documented, but let your tracker do it, durable, automatic capture with context and history is your documentation, far better than notes in your head or a hand-maintained document.

Yes, but let your tracker do it. A good tracker captures each bug with context, status, and history automatically, that's your documentation. The point is bugs are recorded durably, not in your head.