Hi, sorry for my late reply, apparently I&#x27;m not notified of responses to comments :-).<p>1. That&#x27;s true; the non-experimental parts of the suite are mature and work really well.<p>2. This was most apparent in experimental features like Harbourmaster&#x2F;Drydock, where you need a lot of clicking around to configure a basic build setup. Granted, that didn&#x27;t apply as much to the core applications, but we didn&#x27;t find those very user friendly too. The task detail screen in Maniphest, for example, is super-cluttered with all kinds of labels, links, and text in the main panel of that screen. Also, the fluid layout in Maniphest makes it hard to read task descriptions&#x2F;comments because lines of text get very long.<p>3. No, we didn&#x27;t, because we were going to switch away to Github Enterprise anyway. You&#x27;re right about responsiveness of the team, we noticed that too, and that&#x27;s really nice.<p>4. Exactly, code review is how Phabricator started and I can definitely see merits in their approach. However, we aren&#x27;t interested in changing the core workflow of 15 engineers just because it&#x27;s theoretically a better way of doing code review. We&#x27;re getting actual work done just fine with Github&#x27;s PR system, despite the flaws it has, and that was one of the main motivations to go back to Github (Enterprise, in this case).<p>Like I said earlier: I think Phabricator is actually a very nice tool and I can see how it works really well for large teams that are willing to commit to the code review style. It just wasn&#x27;t the right tool for us :-).