Thanks @hricky! Nice to meet you!
The one PR I have open right now is here. It has to do we removing the “container artifact” concept as it is not core to building a custom image. I suggested making it a section, similar to the cross builds. I plan to address the use key use case mentioned in the discussion and consider where to best move the content.
A recently closed PR is is here. This one adds additional context to the example Containerfile and splits the examples into two matching the stated goals at the top of the document.
An area that needs to be more explicit, that @bam highlighted in this post is that custom base images are a “sometimes” solution and not without trade offs. Something to the effect of:
"The goal is not to need this feature in most use cases. The custom base image feature is designed to be the “20” in the 80/20 rule and addresses very specific but important use cases that block bootc adoption without a need to fork the code.
However, the increased control is not free. Going this route means that you carry all of the responsibilities associated with maintaining the base image. Nonetheless, if you come from the “package” world, you may be comfortable with this responsibility and help bootc more seamlessly fit into your existing workflow.
It’s always a good idea to evaluate whether your environment truly needs this feature or if a suitable alternative is available that will require less work in the long run. We will explore some of the alternatives later on. But first, let’s examine the two main use goals for this feature:"
Last place I think that i can help is in the introduction. It could have additonal context, keywords, and alternatives for the feature. Right now it starts a bit abrubtly and doesn’t fully the desire for you to accomplish most tasks with the defualt base and why.
Thank you for your feedback and help!