Hi, Eli,

As usual, I defer this decision to you. I think it's reasonable to

support both names, and I also think it's reasonable to stick to 

just the one we think is most used or representative of the 

program.

In this case, I think "metals-emacs" is a contradiction of LSP's

stated goal, which is to have editor-agnostic servers. But I 

don't know what the reasons were for doing this, I haven't

investigated.

It would be even more reasonable, I think, if distributions 

settled -- or mostly settled - on names for their binaries they 

distribute, much like *nix toolchains do. Of course we do not 

control that process, but maybe we could influence it instead

of being constantly influenced by it.