docs: fixes in Actions runner documentation

[Rahul-Lashkari]

Why:

Fixes in the GitHub Actions documentation related to self-hosted runners and the Actions Runner Controller (ARC).

Closes:

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):

Check off the following:

• A subject matter expert (SME) has reviewed the technical accuracy of the content in this PR. In most cases, the author can be the SME. Open source contributions may require an SME review from GitHub staff.
• The changes in this PR meet the docs fundamentals that are required for all content.
• All CI checks are passing and the changes look good in the review environment.

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[github-actions]

How to review these changes 👓

Thank you for your contribution. To review these changes, choose one of the following options:

• Spin up a codespace
• Set up a local development environment

A Hubber will need to deploy your changes internally to review.

Table of review links

Note: Please update the URL for your staging server or codespace.

The table shows the files in the content directory that were changed in this pull request. This helps you review your changes on a staging server. Changes to the data directory are not included in this table.

Source	Review	Production	What Changed
actions/hosting-your-own-runners/managing-self-hosted-runners-with-actions-runner-controller/about-actions-runner-controller.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.13	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.13
actions/hosting-your-own-runners/managing-self-hosted-runners/customizing-the-containers-used-by-jobs.md	fpt ghec	fpt ghec

Key: fpt: Free, Pro, Team; ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud; ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[Sharra-writes]

Thanks for opening a PR! The use of binary vs. binaries seems really inconsistent to me in the original. "Binaries" is used once more in that same paragraph and once in the following paragraph, but then on line 106 it switches to "binary." 😵‍💫 I'm going to check in with the rest of the team about that, but if you can make it make sense, I would welcome the explanation from any source. 😅

[Rahul-Lashkari]

Thanks for opening a PR! The use of binary vs. binaries seems really inconsistent to me in the original. "Binaries" is used once more in that same paragraph and once in the following paragraph, but then on line 106 it switches to "binary." 😵‍💫 I'm going to check in with the rest of the team about that, but if you can make it make sense, I would welcome the explanation from any source. 😅

thanks for the feedback, I felt the same and waited for your saying. I also felt the word scale set would be much appropriate. I've updated the pr, hope this makes it! PTAL.

[Sharra-writes]

Okay, this is also complicated. I think "ScaleSet" is correct, even though it's written as "Scale Sets" in one place, because I see names like "AutoScalingRunnerSet" and "RunnerSet" that follow the same format. The "scaleset" is more ambiguous, though, because "scale set" is used in the reusable on line 19. Lowercase "scaleset" might be the name of the mode, but it's not used that way consistently.

Here's what I would recommend: "ScaleSet" should always be one word, because it matches the other capitalized terms. Lowercase "scaleset" should always actually be "scale set." That should (🤞) make it consistent and more readable.