Oh hi, this was an unexpected pleasure.

My usecase for item 1 is a bit special, I can admit. The pain point came up when I tried to set up RB for testing, and interestingly enough both items tie directly into each other.

- Reviews need to be generated automatically when suitable trigger conditions are met. This means that there has to be a dedicated user account in RB that can create reviews on behalf of other users. Reviews also need to be automatically updated when new changes land in the branch under review.

- While setting RB up, it's not at all uncommon to do a round of install/provision/repopulate iterations. Without the ability to generate users and assign their permissions through an API the automation and iteration go out of the window.

- The account permissions for RB are very granular. I don't want to manage these permissions via a web-UI, I want them populated and updated based on reviewable commits. Hence, everything must go through config management. Yet another web-UI for managing yet another set of accounts and permissions is ... increasingly repulsive.

I can understand where the permission and account creation friction comes from. For you, RB is a product. (Hell, it certainly is one!) For me, RB is simply a tool, and as such it has to integrate with other tools. Code review tool is an extremely important one, but without fluid integration with other development workflow tools it becomes an additional burden to maintain. For developers who don't need to worry about integration efforts, yet another extra account adds to the cognitive overhead.

Furthermore, I realise your permission model is tightly coupled with the underlying architecture, which itself builds on top of Django. Exposing the kind of functionality I ask for requires to expose and nest quite a few internal API layers. I do genuinely see why that has not been roadmap item so far. Codewise that is a big undertaking.

As for item number 2... you just made me drool. I haven't seen a tool yet that would allow to easily see change comparisons with dynamic interdiff windows. Having visibility into how a change set has evolved, and what the compound intermediate results have been between any given steps would be a huge boon. (No, `git diff ref1..ref2` is not ideal. On the other hand something like `git show ref1 ref2 ref3..ref6 ref7..ref8` gets a lot closer.)

Once you have native DVCS support and push-to-commit for fluid integration between other tools, RB has the ability become "just another tool". I see that as a good thing :)

I haven't yet tried phabricator (evaluating it is on our infrastructure team's roadmap), but so far it looks like it tries to do too much.

You guessed correctly, the PR integration is not relevant for me, but I can definitely see how it would better integrate with lots of teams' workflows. No wonder it gets asked for.

> Again, Review Board 4.0 is when a lot of this will make an appearance, but I'll try to get account creation via the API to happen in 3.0. (Just added it to our roadmap.)

Thank you. Thank you so much.

NB. I am a big believer in tooling and workflow. Related to that, I have developed an increasing intolerance to anything that cannot be configured via config management. Changes to infrastructure are no different to changes in code - everything needs to be reviewable and versioned. (Which also means that the infrastructure must be rebuildable with minimal manual steps.)