You should be doing pre-commit reviews, if that is the workflow you desire. That way if errors are found in code, they are fixed before they land in the repository. We have no means if you're only doing code audits, of knowing if one commit is just a fix for another commit (which, even if it is, should be re-reviewed).

I agree it should be re-reviewed.

But just looking forward to see if can add relationship between two or more commits because reviewer need to know the context, and can find easily in Phabricator which may fast the process and improve efficiency. We can bind them like concept parent commitment (first one), or even a task.

And also, we may want reviewer to see the comment easily, not by open two audit requests at same time. I just want to make the process smoothly, how do you think?

You can do this by referencing the commit it fixes in the commit message. Like:

This fixes a typo introduced in rPf4f8e9bb969028666b75252fc5fcdc714da521b2

We also now crosslink object mentions, so it will get linked on the original commit in the timeline as well.

It sounds good. It can be also recognized in SVN commit message. but just title looks strange.

But seems no crosslink in original commitment.

Is your instance at HEAD? This is a very new feature.

You also do not have put the > or any text specifically, we'll parse and link any commit hash.

In T6080#9, @chad wrote:

We also now crosslink object mentions, so it will get linked on the original commit in the timeline as well.

This is a really nice addition! Been hoping this would get in eventually.