> Extending the thought: what if we allow users to specify a custom container name when creating / updating actions, in case users want to ?
Isn't that what we call "blackbox" (docker) actions now? But in general - the reason for this work - is along these lines. Rather than having a small number of fixed images per runtime, we can support many more. A concern however is that we don't want to incur docker pull costs for some set of curated images (in the future, you can image that docker actions come with an explicit push operation at create time - but we're not there yet). So by having an extensible list of images, it makes it easier to curate action runtimes. The scenario you describe otherwise is already supported (we know there are users who extend our nodejs base image with their own artifacts). This has the benefit of pulling in fewer layers. -r
