Code Review

We would like to document and formalize the review procces with the goal that it should be easy to trace back and see why a change was made and to increase trust in the code by ensuring more than one person is accountable for any code changes.

Currently (nearly) all code commits are reveiwed by an acknowledged contributure before they are merged into master. The actual commiting of the code is done either by the reviwer or the author, there is no strict rule on this at the moment. The review process uses the github's review system, this means that the review is documenteated in github but is not explicitly included in the git history. Changes that are currently not reviewed are those that releate to the release process, ie incrimenting version numbers etc.

The current process provides most of the #### we need but it is not document or enforced 100%.

Github offers a feature called protected branches which can enforced reviews. This would be a easy way to ensure all code is reviewed, but it does not help with ensuring that the review (approval) history is captured in the git history. It also would require that person creating release has sufficient permission to push directly the release commits or else release commits will also need to go via pull request and require a review/approval.