> If your "why" doesn't contains this, I have an hard time understanding why you want it in the first place. The "why" doesn't need to include every minor styl

> If your "why" doesn't contains this, I have an hard time understanding why you want it in the first place. The "why" doesn't need to include every minor style nit (all the way down to variable naming) that came up during the review. It doesn't need to include every "I would have done it this way instead" comment which was in neither the original nor final version. That's noise, not signal. > Personally every time I only needed a tiny bits more context Lucky you. For much of the code I have read or written, that was not the case. In general it tends to be less and less the case as code climbs up the complexity/innovation scale. > I'd rather die than lose time over something I consider won't save time in the long term. Is that an unavoidable issue with the medium, or more of a reflection of how some people are bad at writing? I've whipped out a spec for a medium-complexity feature or component in under an hour, and been thanked for it five years later. Many times. If you've never had that experience, then I can only say I hope you'll be able to some day. > when we do, the ticket information is enough and if it's not Again, lucky you. Others have a different experience.