Dear Michael and Rune,

Yes, when I started I was hoping that my tinkering might eventually be absorbed 
into lmerTest. Unfortunately, at the time, my knowledge of R and lmerTest was 
not sufficient for me to hack at lmerTest, and once I had achieved what I 
needed for LMMs in my own way (as a small script for personal use), I realized 
that I could easily extend my approach to GLMs and GAMs, at the obvious cost of 
breaking any possibility for upstreaming my code to lmerTest. I think that of 
the code I have now, not much is useful to lmerTest, but when I find the time I 
will certainly take a look if some things could be detached from buildmer into 

I was aware of the new version of lmerTest (still have to update buildmer to 
work with the new interfaces though), but I have not used its step function in 
a long time. I'm glad to hear that it has gotten better at handling convergence 
failures. Yes, in case of future problems I will definitely get in touch, as I 
should perhaps have done two years ago -- I can only guess that at the time, I 
figured that the problem must have been with my model specification itself; my 
road to learning mixed models has been somewhat rocky!

In any case, I am encouraged by your replies. I will see if I can fix some more 
bugs and get the code to pass the CRAN checks, and maybe eventually I'll 
actually submit the package. Of course, I'll also see if there are things that 
could be of use to lmerTest, since I don't want to needlessly step onto their 
turf. Thank you for your kind feedback!


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Rune Haubo []
> Verzonden: donderdag 7 juni 2018 13:49
> Aan: Michael Dewey <>
> CC: Voeten, C.C. <>; r-package-devel@r-
> Onderwerp: Re: [R-pkg-devel] How do I know if/when my package is fit for
> On 7 June 2018 at 13:00, Michael Dewey <> wrote:
> >
> > One thing which occurs to me though is whether the maintaner of
> > lmerTest would accept it into the package? If it has a different
> > philosophy probably not but perhaps worth asking?
> In the lmerTest-team we are always open to collaborations. A quick look at
> buildmer indicates that it takes a different approach than lmerTest and has a
> different scope (lmerTest is for LMMs but buildmer seems to cover GLMs,
> GLMMs, and GAMMs as well) so perhaps buildmer is most appropriately
> kept in a separate package.
> @Cesko, you may have noticed that a new almost completely re-written
> version of lmerTest (>= 3.0.0) has been out for a couple of months now? It
> has a new improved version of step() which should be better behaved when
> it comes to convergence failures. If you still encounter problems please let 
> us
> know by posting an issue at In
> any case you are always welcome to reach out privately.
> Cheers
> Rune
> (for the lmerTest authors)
______________________________________________ mailing list

Reply via email to