On 7 June 2018 at 13:00, Michael Dewey <li...@dewey.myzen.co.uk> 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 https://github.com/runehaubo/lmerTestR. In any case you are always welcome to reach out privately. Cheers Rune (for the lmerTest authors) ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel