[rbrown46]

We've been using Opera Critic (https://github.com/jensl/critic) where I work for about half a year. We did trial runs with Gerrit, Barkeep and Phabricator before settling on it. My impression is that its almost completely unknown outside of Opera, which is surprising given the feature set, clean UI and active development. The site used to review branches for the Critic project is also a demo: https://critic-review.org

It supports the model of having many atomic, reviewable commits on a topic branch. Where it seems to exceed Kiln is in the rebase/fixup workflow. You can push fixup commits in response to issues left by a reviewer. A fixup commit will automatically mark an issue it addresses as resolved when you push based on the lines it changes (the fixup must also be reviewed). You can later rebase the branch to integrate the fixups. It's pretty clever, and the way fixups are shown lets you see at a glance how the branch has evolved.

As a reviewer, and as someone who often digs through five year old commits, I want feature branches to follow the most linear path possible. Approaches that are started and abandoned, and commits made on top of a branch in response to review feedback are noise. A well-crafted branch often has little to do with what happened during development.