Skip to content

Conversation

@nicoburns
Copy link
Collaborator

Change made in response to review feedback when upstreaming changes (already accepted upstream). Depends on #232.

@mrobinson
Copy link
Member

@nicoburns Do you mind linking to the upstream conversation just for the convenience of people from the future? Thanks!

@nicoburns
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@nicoburns nicoburns added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 20, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch Aug 20, 2025
Signed-off-by: Nico Burns <nico@nicoburns.com>
@nicoburns nicoburns force-pushed the move-modules-into-servo branch from 388ab0b to 52dee11 Compare August 20, 2025 12:09
@nicoburns nicoburns enabled auto-merge August 20, 2025 12:09
@nicoburns nicoburns added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 20, 2025
Merged via the queue into servo:main with commit 8d42ac8 Aug 20, 2025
5 checks passed
@nicoburns nicoburns deleted the move-modules-into-servo branch August 20, 2025 12:13
@mrobinson
Copy link
Member

https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D261584?id=1108000#inline-1434192

I'm a reading correctly that this change only affects shadow_parts.rs though?

@nicoburns
Copy link
Collaborator Author

https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D261584?id=1108000#inline-1434192

I'm a reading correctly that this change only affects shadow_parts.rs though?

So shadow_parts.rs was new code being upstreamed. Emilio suggested it live in servo/ because it's Servo specific. I actioned that in https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D261668 which also moves attr.rs, encoding_support.rs and animation.rs into servo/ becuase they're also servo-specific.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants