A few thoughts.
1. Lore changes matter a lot less than people seem to think. All you have to do is compare a 5e Monster Manual to an earlier one. Virtually every single monster is changed and often changed significantly. Either the background lore of the race is added to or sometimes completely revised and no one cares. You never hear about how they changed all this lore going into 5e. Because they certainly did, but, again, no one cares. So, all this tempest in a teacup about ASI's and changing this or that race is just the whipping boy du jour and will fade away once people find some other bone to chew on.
2. After ten years, it's not unreasonable to think that we could use a refreshed Core 3. Does anyone really think that's it's unreasonable? That we've learned so little about the game and game design in the past ten+ years that we can't revise the game?
3. The OP mentioned how there wasn't much kerfuffle when 3e rolled out. Umm, there's a pretty large community over at Thunderfoot that might disagree with you there. Never minding an entire OSR community that rejects 3e completely. Might not be as large as the Paizo community but, it isn't small.
4. So long as they don't massively change things, most of the 5e books will still be viable. Sure, you might have some minor changes to race - but that's really easy to institute. Heck, it's quite possible that the majority of people won't even notice. What are the ASI's, without looking it up, for a Halfling? Sure, you might know it offhand, you D&D nerd you

, but, most people have no idea. Changing a svirfneblin's abilities? Virtually no one is going to notice. We're talking about a race that is played at a tiny, tiny fraction of tables. 99.9% of tables won't even know the difference. And, none of that will impact, say, the modules or splats, which mean that you can still play Hoard of the Dragon Queen after the revision without any difficulties.