I was running 1.1.04 and I ran a check for a new version, which showed med it was a new one available with some bugfixes or something. I downloaded it and found it was also named 1.1.04, but had a slightly different size. Thus, some change obviously must have happened on the way.
In the about box, I find version number (1.1.04) and build date, but nothing more. Since I can only guess build data may differ between platforms, perhaps it would be more practical to use a patch level to clearly show the version number, as in 1.1.04.2 or something like that?
From what I understand there were 2 iterations of 1.1.04 for Mac released but that wasn’t due to a formal release change. The first iteration was wrongly loaded to the release server and was simply corrected with the correct file.
Than I suggest the new one is name 1.1.04.1 to avoid confusion if/when this happens again. It is, after all, common to make mistakes. Other software packages will drop the version and release a new 1.1.05 or something in such cases. I beleive that’s overkill, but still, keeping the same version ID is indeed confusing.
Still, it was released so it should have a version number, not something ‘oh, it was the first x.y.z, not the final one.’ This is why we have version numbers after all and why they are used, including when mistakes happen. A bug report system won’t be able to differ between the first and second x.y.z and x.y.z and shouldn’t, since they shouldn’t have the same version.