>I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for
>example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be
>"classed together". Therfore the use of "group" is not wrong from a
I can agree with your argument from a purely semantic and academic standpoint.
However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like "oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group". But alas, you cannot.
Moreover, even the definition for a host group in Foreman refers to the group as a template:
"A host group is in some ways similar to an inherited node declaration, in that it is a high level grouping of classes that can be named and treated as a unit. This is then treated as a template and is selectable during the creation of a new host and ensures that the host is configured in one of your pre-defined states." 
Herein lies the confusion. A host group is a grouping of hosts that is treated as a template. Huh?
> I have heard the term "Host Definition" passed around which might be
> acceptable but overall i'm +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid
> user disruption.
I understand the desire to avoid disruption and I want to weigh that against the benefit of preventing confusion for future users. I believe that this change will make for a better project.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Sutcliffe"
To: "Foreman ."
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 9:53:06 AM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host (Configuration) Templates
On 9 May 2014 13:29, Petr Chalupa firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 07.05.14 19:14, Andreas Rogge wrote:
You could call it “Host Set” or “Host Class” though.
You are right I like “Host Class”.
“class” is a loaded term, it will get confused with puppet classes.
I’m in favour of keeping group - referring to Walden’s originally
- a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.
I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for
example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be
"classed together". Therfore the use of “group” is not wrong from a
I have heard the term “Host Definition” passed around which might be
acceptable but overall i’m +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.