All of your criticisms of Savannah seem oriented around aesthetics rather than its actual functionality. Personally I don't need much eye-candy for a git host because 99% of my work is done from the command line, but even if I cared about that I'd still pick Savannah over SF any day of the week.
I thought this had been resolved years ago, but aesthetics aren't about eye candy. They are about productive and pleasant experiences.
As a tangible example, imagine yourself working in a dank, contaminated 6' diameter sewer pipe with spotty pirated electricity, vs. a well-designed, large interior space with plenty of natural light and reliable utilities. Regardless of how irrelevant appearances are to you, I'd wager you'd get more work done in the second environment than in the first.
To the point of Savannah vs. SF, I'm inclined to agree. I have projects from the early 2000s still on SF and I need to move them off.
It does actually. UX, aesthetics, all of it is important and stuffing your head in the sand saying "Hey, I don't care about aesthetics, I just use the command line" is a very irresponsive attitude.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Savannah's website being ugly is not a reason to say "it's no better than SF", because it's still miles better.
