"as in the ability to create diff objects and branch and rearrange them arbitrarily in a pretty simple way, and have multiple people working on these branches a

"as in the ability to create diff objects and branch and rearrange them arbitrarily in a pretty simple way, and have multiple people working on these branches at the same time and keeping in sync with each other" I can't truly speak for them, but I suspect these are both (reworking the history of code while its in review, and multiple people working on a branch) things that the Phabricator authors would say are bad practices that your tools should discourage. The arguments that come to my mind are 1) Reworking history during review makes it near for your reviewers to understand what is changing. That should be reserved until its time to merge your code, at which point all the revisions along the way should be squashed. 2) Shared development on a branch means the scope of the change is large, and the branch is probably long-lived too. Both of these are arguably bad; I don't have time to argue why, but chapter 13 of Continuous Delivery lays it out well.