Done Criteria

There is an ordered checklist/table in #202 that maintainers are aligned on and can comment on regarding:

1. What repos we'll be copying-in (and not)
2. The order that we'll do those imports
3. Expected import location

The checklist/table also includes tracking elements for each repo like:

1. Whether it has been copied in
2. Whether its issues have been reviewed and the relevant ones copied over
3. Whether the "not maintained" README notice and deprecated types have been merged.

The specific steps we'll follow for migrating each repo are also defined. This includes having agreed-upon "not maintained README messaging" that we'll put in each repo.

Why Important

Per discussion in ipfs/kubo#8543 , the adjusting of repos is disruptive for existing consumers. We want to minimize the disruption by being thoughtful and clear. (That said, originally we were actually migrating repos. Per #191 we are now copying repos, but still adding deprecation types, which shouldn't be as disruptive.)

User/Customer

1. Maintainers so we're aligned and don't have people importing repos without thinking about the bigger picture.
2. Current consumers of repos we're planning to import so they can plan accordingly or influence if we're making a mistake.

Notes

This is effectively the "roadmap" for this import effort that was kicked off in ipfs/kubo#8543.
This is the place for maintainers to be transparent and signal things like "these are the repos we're copying in and this is the status".
This will live in #202

### Tasks
- [x] Create an issue / doc to house the tracking checklist / table: https://github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/issues/202
- [x] @guseggert Create the checklist / table with the list of repos that we're planning to copy in and deprecate with messaging and types (but not actually archive)
- [x] Include the reverting of ipfs/go-block-format in the above.
- [x] Draft the "not maintained README messaging"
- [x] Get review from @ipfs/kubo-maintainers including @BigLep
- [x] Surface in this issue and https://github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/issues/196 so interested parties can follow along