@pulkit I have added a new argument in _prepareabortorcontinue. Now I think
there is no need to split that patch, if I am not wrong. We can leave this
patch here.
Thanks :)

In D3764#59797, @pulkit wrote:

@khanchi97 you should have created a new differential so that we don't loose your earlier patch titled: 'rebase: improve output of --dry-run' which is yet under review.

In D3764#59443, @indygreg wrote:

In D3764#59425, @pulkit wrote:

Thinking out loud here: I see that --dry-run for rebase will be very useful for automation. How about returning 1 when there are conflicts and returning 0 when there are no conflicts? Also maybe we should add formatter support to the dry-run output for each command so that automation can read the JSON output and tell user what can happen.

I approve of both of these feature suggestions! However, they should be implemented in standalone changesets and not incorporated into this one.

@khanchi97 you should have created a new differential so that we don't loose your earlier patch titled: 'rebase: improve output of --dry-run' which is yet under review.

In D3757#59775, @khanchi97 wrote:

I was also thinking to add --confirm option. It will show the same output as dry-run but at the end, will ask the user to continue. So that user don't have to write that command again. What do you say?

I was also thinking to add --confirm option. It will show the same output as dry-run but at the end, will ask the user to continue. So that user don't have to write that command again. What do you say?

@command('grep',
    [('0', 'print0', None, _('end fields with NUL')),

• ('', 'all', None, _('print all revisions that match')), + ('', 'all', None, _('print all revisions that match (DEPRECATED)')), ('', 'diff', None, _('print all revisions when the term was introduced or removed')),

I need some help with the tests failing here.