You think they should wait until SHA-2 is broken to start looking for a replacement? Think about that for a second.
If they think for a replacement there is a reason, right? If they think for a replacement after 2012 why you shouldn't? Or you intend to use SHA-2 until 2140?
SHA-1 is still unbroken (as far as i know), but that's no reason to not use SHA-2. Just means that SHA-1 had a possible future weakness that could be fixed, for the most part, but at the cost of using more computing power. The time has just come again that average computing power has yet increased that they see fit to upgrade it to nip any possible weakness in the bud. The only problem found in SHA-1 was a POSSIBLE mathematical weakness, and since SHA-2 is roughly based on SHA-1, just a bit beefed up, the search for a replacement to SHA-1 never really stopped.