I don't. Although the results would vary depending on the exact time you apply the method, straight-line has two serious drawbacks:
1. It completely ignores the concept of place
2. It doesn't guarantee fairness in any way

My personal view (which I acknowledge is far from universal) is that districts need to be set up on three principles.

1. Medium-sized cities should anchor districts whereever possible.
2. Large-sized cities need to be split radially in order to get a good cross-section of urban vs. rural.
3. Many states have a large rural area that is not represented by any medium sized city but has several small ones.

In Alabama, you need 7 districts of 700,000 people each. You have one metropolis (Birmingham), four medium-sized cities (Huntsville, Mobile, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa), and the southeast (Auburn, Dothan, etc.).

1. Start with your medium cities and identify the jurisdictions (counties first, then townships or districts or whatever they're called in that state) that most identify with that city until you hit 700k. When in doubt, favor jurisdictions that border the state border and/or other neighboring districts to avoid islands.

2. Patch together the southeastern jurisdictions. When in doubt, avoid islands created near the small cities. In other words, start from outside the Mobile district and wheel around Montgomery. Without doing the math, I think you finish around Auburn.

3. Split Birmingham in half using I20 as the dividing line. Have one arm reach to the northwest and the other to the east.

No method is perfect, but at least here you get a mix of districts that are competitive and that people feel tied to / represented by.
[Post edited by Faz d. Hoo at 12/15/2017 09:01AM]