With the $100M investment I now think it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for those edge cases where bitbucket clearly wins.
Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat.
Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, and I'm living on Ramen while trying not to worry about my dwindling savings account. So it's a pretty clear-cut choice for me.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1384325/in-git-is-there-a...
Instead of creating a repo per project, I create a orphan branch within a shared repo for that project. The benefit of this approach is that you can always cleanly export the commits into its own repository without altering SHA ids. The con is that you have to pick separate branch names for each project (e.g. proj1-master, proj2-master).
I moved my personal private repos to BitBucket a long time ago, and haven't looked back.
Well, when you've got a large list of things stored on a computer, and you want them displayed in a certain order, automatic sorting (after you assign a priority) is a lot more useful than having to rearrange them manually.
I mean, if you want to build a natural language parser that counts how many times the words "URGENT" and "HELP" appears in the issue and then automatically reorders it, you can do that with the Github issues API anyways, right? I don't know of existing bug trackers that make priority automatic.
You can filter based on labels in github issues, if that's what you meant.