Sorry if the question is too obvious, but why not using Differential for code review, which is the right tool for that job? You can relate multiple differentials (patches) to a single Phabricator task.

The old workflow used Jira for managing tasks and Crucible for reviewing changes after they were committed.
Pre-commit reviews are definitively better, but convincing the whole team to change their dear habits is not so easy.
Therefore I was hoping to start with the well known post-commit reviews and try to change to pre-commit later.

Regarding pre-commit reviews: I used gerrit with git before. But I'm not sure how pre-commit reviews work with svn, which does not allow local commits.
Does pre-commit on svn mean, that you cannot work on your code as long as your change is under review?

And how does differential make sure that the review changeset is the same as the later manually committed changeset?

Two strategies for SVN pre-commit review without blocking are: using multiple working copies like local branches; or saving your work to a .diff and using patch to restore it later (or using arc patch, if using Differential).

These are definitely both more cumbersome than Git.

◀ Merged tasks: T5216.

I wanted to add some additional information for my situataion. In my group we are also trying to move away from post-commit reviews and perform mostly pre-commit reviews. However, part of our regulatory system requires certain types of reviews of specific features throughout the year. These reviews are primarily focused on the current state of some feature, and is not easily put together by selecting commits to review. Having the ability to select any files at a given revision to review in an audit would be excellent feature. We have looked at several repository management suites along with Phabricator such as GitHub, GitLab, ReviewBoard, Gerrit, and Kallithea, and none of them appear to support this feature.

In addition to regulatory purposes, this immensely benefits our design process - when we need to review existing features to analyze the quality and gain a more technical review of how to update the system for new requirements.

@cspeckmim, T4348 is probably closer to the workflow you're after.

Our existing process also works with post-commit reviews instead of pre-commit. We used Upsource before, which handled the feature of having multiple commits for a specific audit quite elegant. Would love to see such a feature in Phabricator too.