Mark package as unmaintained

[MasonProtter]

Ideally we could also list a point of contact if someone wants to try and revive it and become an owner.

Alternatively, we could merge @ScottPJones's Format.jl into this as a breaking release of the package (as suggested here: #106 (comment))

Aditionally, are there any other alternative packages that could be listed?

[kescobo]

Would you please add a badge from repostatus.org? Probably unsupported (I would add the markdown code, but I'm on my phone and it's hard to copy the long string

[MasonProtter]

Unsupported gives me kinda the wrong vibe. I'd think either Inactive or Abandoned are more accurate. I think Abandoned is maybe the most correct and useful since it signals that if someone wanted, they could try and take it over, but it also sounds kinda harsh.

[MasonProtter]

Actually, after reading the description, Unsupported does seem like the right descriptor.

[ederag]

Abandoned:

Initial development has started, but there has not yet been a stable, usable release; the project has been abandoned and the author(s) do not intend on continuing development.

Unsupported:

The project has reached a stable, usable state but the author(s) have ceased all work on it. A new maintainer may be desired."

So the latter seems appropriate, by their definition ?

Agreed that the adjective itself does not convey the idea that it would be very cool if someone stepped in.
I'd say the badge + a quote of the definition at the top should be fine though.

[Seelengrab]

Considering there are quite a lot of egregious bugs that seriously impact usability, I'd say this package is more abandoned than unsupported.

[jakobjpeters]

Merging Format.jl begs the question on whether the same package will be maintained under two separate names, which seems unnecessarily confusing.

[Seelengrab]

As has been discussed, this package is not maintained, so I don't think there's any concern there.

[kescobo]

Thanks @MasonProtter !