During Didio's reign as head of DC, the Superman books, moreso than any other franchise in the DCU, saw a seemingly endless series of reboots and continuity reshuffles and retro-boots, and revamps. This was meant to culminate in 5G, which would have seen Superman and company aged up, but the broad strokes of all his previous history made canon in an exhaustive year by year timeline that would have stretched from baby Kal-El's rocket landing on Earth in 1938 to the present day, which would have the 18 year old son of Kal-El take over as Superman.

Then, Didio got fired and Marie Javins' was brought into replace him and try to course correct while still using as much of the material generated for 5G as possible.

Understandably, the current Superman writers have been loath to dive back into Superman's origin again given how often its been redone or revised since Loeb tried to retro-boot the 1948 Krypton back into continuity in the early 2000s.

However, we now have a situation wherein the specifics of Superman's history is more vague than some may like. The main points are all there, of course, but the exact details are hazy. Granted, that is generally the case with any long-running superhero continuity with a sliding timeline, but this does seem to be a sticking point for some fans.

The question is, how much does this matter? Do we need a year by year recounting of exactly what Superman's history is now, and how it all fits together? Do we need to know what stories are canon and which aren't? Or should the Superman books simply focus on telling the best stories they can? Is the foundation laid out by Johns, Jurgens, Bendis, (along with the elements of Morrison's reboot that have stuck), enough to move forward?