Not sure where it is active here, here I want to search for a best practice for Audit.
because we have dynamic/developer repository, and arc seems a little hard to enforce into team at first beginning, So I want to enforce audit as code review process in team.
but because audit is by commit;
If reviewer add some comments, and raise concern to author, then author fix comments and check-in again. but then the check-in will be another audit request and even with no relation with previous one. how can we make it behave like arc diff, to check check-in in one series, and with full context in audit.
what is best practice here, any suggestion is appreciated.
To be honest the case you describe sounds like Differential would be a much better fit. I think the ability to make modifications to a change based on feedback having it all exist within a single revision seems more core to differential-based review instead of audit. I would suggest having one or two developers try it out a few times to assess whether it is worth pursuing again.
When I was introducing Phabricator to our developers I had some initial troubles communicating how to use arcanist/differential workflow (some teams still only use arc diff to create/update the revisions avoiding arc land in favor of manual landing). Despite those troubles using the Differential workflow caught on pretty quick as the developers saw the immediate value it provides. After ~3 months there's been almost a complete 180 in our process for reviewing changes across all development teams because of this.