I've been using Audit for the first time to do post-commit reviews (I've been using Differential for pre-commit reviews for quite some time now), and the flow doesn't seem as solid as the Differential one:
- I find a commit with "issues", add some comments to the code and "raise concern"
- Another commit is done by the author to address these issues (but not necessarily all since they have might unintentionally missed some)
- In either cases (all issues addressed or some missed), how do you close the loop properly and ensure things don't fall through the cracks?
- There doesn't seem to be a built-in way to "mark as resolved" each comment / concern
- There doesn't seem to be a built-in way to link the follow-up commit to the one for which concerns were raised (which is also good for history browsing starting from either commit)
- There is no indication in the repo history view that a commit has concerns raised
You could certainly have some conventions to add follow-up comments, put the follow-up commit SHA1 into the comment field when accepting the commit, etc... but it's not enforced and is therefore quite fragile.