Update patch set 3

Patch Set 3: Code-Review+1

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 3
Label: Code-Review=+1
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 1000010 \u003c1000010@035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"laforge replied on the change"}

4f36345180c9556086ef8fd4f3d0bd22af9d2abd

@@ -214,6 +214,30 @@
       "revId": "4f36345180c9556086ef8fd4f3d0bd22af9d2abd",
       "serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
     },
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "f587d582_2af9ccc2",
+        "filename": "/COMMIT_MSG",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 26,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1000004
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-01-31T11:52:52Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "tbh, I don\u0027t get the \"sapi\" vs \"category\" difference here. \n\nIMHO, calling it gsmtap-sapi only makes sense if we use the exact same syntax/naming as in osmo-bts, where indeed as fixeria points out it was introduced to match the proprietary DSP PHY intrface \"SAPI\" value.\n\nAnd if we\u0027re not keeping it syntacticall identical to osmo-bts, then there\u0027s no need to call the circuit switched part \"sapi\" and the GPRS side \"category\"?",
+      "parentUuid": "8d0298c5_1ce808be",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 26,
+        "startChar": 1,
+        "endLine": 26,
+        "endChar": 16
+      },
+      "revId": "4f36345180c9556086ef8fd4f3d0bd22af9d2abd",
+      "serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
+    },
     {
       "unresolved": true,
       "key": {