I came in here to see how close the fork was and read this...
It is confusing and for that I apologize. We took the exact same source code and changed the cutoff block to earlier (block #28336). The new binaries replaced the old binaries at the same URL. So download the binary again, and install it again overwriting the old files.
Seriously?
You would be in some deep **** if you did that to financial software in any regulated market.
The support staff on your own team would kill you, if it was a heavily used/supported tool in any market.
I realize that in this particular situation it's probably not going to cause much harm.. Still, after years of QA and configuration management, that gives me a headache.
You should really version at this point, while you still have a tiny bit of time left before the fork. How much easier is it to say "make sure you are on v3" (for example) than to go through "Which version of v2 do you have? ...You don't know? .... Well download it again and see if you still have the problem..."
I mean, this is the exact reason that the ENTIRE GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY agrees and uses version numbers on everything.
When you publish a mandatory upgrade to v 0.0.2-2 how many people are going to check their software, and be relieved that they "already have" the right version?
You've already floated two versions with the same ID and differing functionality. In order to stop that from becoming a major problem for your product, I suggest you float a new version so that there is one version BEFORE the upgrade, and one version AFTER the upgrade.
No one should have to type this out for you at all.